Human Rights Protection the ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and the Newest Regional Human Rights System
Identifieur interne : 001258 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001257; suivant : 001259Human Rights Protection the ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and the Newest Regional Human Rights System
Auteurs : Daniel Aguirre ; Irene PietropaoliSource :
- International Human Rights Law Review [ 2213-1027 ] ; 2012.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Acwc, African charter, African commission, Aguirre, Ahrd, Aichr, Aichr terms, April, Asean, Asean charter, Asean commission, Asean member states, Asean states, August, Bangkok, Bangkok declaration, Brunei, Civil society, Csos, December, Human rights, Ibid, Jakarta, Jakarta post, January, July, June, Malaysia, Member states, Myanmar, November, October, Petcharamesree, Pietropaoli, Rights bodies, Rights declaration, Rights mechanism, Singapore.
- Teeft :
- Acwc, African charter, African commission, Aguirre, Ahrd, Aichr, Aichr terms, April, Asean, Asean charter, Asean commission, Asean member states, Asean states, August, Bangkok, Bangkok declaration, Brunei, Civil society, Csos, December, Human rights, Ibid, Jakarta, Jakarta post, January, July, June, Malaysia, Member states, Myanmar, November, October, Petcharamesree, Pietropaoli, Rights bodies, Rights declaration, Rights mechanism, Singapore.
Abstract
The Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) is a regional body working towards the integration of disparate states. The creation of a human rights mechanism, a critical part of this integration, confronts the central philosophy of ASEAN: deference to conservative notions of sovereignty and non-interference, often referred to as the ASEAN Way. This doctrine has been necessary to promote cooperation and trust between these neighbours but may prove incongruent with a human rights body that attempts to monitor and enforce international human rights law. This article looks at the challenges posed by the ASEAN way and how they developed in section 2. Section 3 follows with an examination of the ASEAN Way’s impact on the development of the regional human rights bodies. Section 4 addresses structural problems arising from the ASEAN Way: the limited human rights mandate; the lack of civil society participation; and the lack of common human rights standards among ASEAN states. Overall, this article examines the central irony that the while the ASEAN Way is necessary, it undermines the regional human rights body.
Url:
DOI: 10.1163/22131035-00102003
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:25F10651E462A2B104FC5FFAE5631BF89A8075C4Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Human Rights Protection the ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and the Newest Regional Human Rights System</title><author><name sortKey="Aguirre, Daniel" sort="Aguirre, Daniel" uniqKey="Aguirre D" first="Daniel" last="Aguirre">Daniel Aguirre</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Lecturer in International Law, Regent’s College, London, UK, aguirred@regents.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: aguirred@regents.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Pietropaoli, Irene" sort="Pietropaoli, Irene" uniqKey="Pietropaoli I" first="Irene" last="Pietropaoli">Irene Pietropaoli</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>PhD Candidate, Middlesex University, London, UK, I.Pietropaoli@mdx.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: I.Pietropaoli@mdx.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:25F10651E462A2B104FC5FFAE5631BF89A8075C4</idno><date when="2012" year="2012">2012</date><idno type="doi">10.1163/22131035-00102003</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/25F10651E462A2B104FC5FFAE5631BF89A8075C4/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001258</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001258</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Human Rights Protection the ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and the Newest Regional Human Rights System</title><author><name sortKey="Aguirre, Daniel" sort="Aguirre, Daniel" uniqKey="Aguirre D" first="Daniel" last="Aguirre">Daniel Aguirre</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Lecturer in International Law, Regent’s College, London, UK, aguirred@regents.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: aguirred@regents.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Pietropaoli, Irene" sort="Pietropaoli, Irene" uniqKey="Pietropaoli I" first="Irene" last="Pietropaoli">Irene Pietropaoli</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>PhD Candidate, Middlesex University, London, UK, I.Pietropaoli@mdx.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: I.Pietropaoli@mdx.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">International Human Rights Law Review</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">HRLR</title><idno type="ISSN">2213-1027</idno><idno type="eISSN">2213-1035</idno><imprint><publisher>Martinus Nijhoff Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Leiden</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012">2012</date><biblScope unit="volume">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="276">276</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="311">311</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">2213-1027</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">2213-1027</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Acwc</term><term>African charter</term><term>African commission</term><term>Aguirre</term><term>Ahrd</term><term>Aichr</term><term>Aichr terms</term><term>April</term><term>Asean</term><term>Asean charter</term><term>Asean commission</term><term>Asean member states</term><term>Asean states</term><term>August</term><term>Bangkok</term><term>Bangkok declaration</term><term>Brunei</term><term>Civil society</term><term>Csos</term><term>December</term><term>Human rights</term><term>Ibid</term><term>Jakarta</term><term>Jakarta post</term><term>January</term><term>July</term><term>June</term><term>Malaysia</term><term>Member states</term><term>Myanmar</term><term>November</term><term>October</term><term>Petcharamesree</term><term>Pietropaoli</term><term>Rights bodies</term><term>Rights declaration</term><term>Rights mechanism</term><term>Singapore</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Acwc</term><term>African charter</term><term>African commission</term><term>Aguirre</term><term>Ahrd</term><term>Aichr</term><term>Aichr terms</term><term>April</term><term>Asean</term><term>Asean charter</term><term>Asean commission</term><term>Asean member states</term><term>Asean states</term><term>August</term><term>Bangkok</term><term>Bangkok declaration</term><term>Brunei</term><term>Civil society</term><term>Csos</term><term>December</term><term>Human rights</term><term>Ibid</term><term>Jakarta</term><term>Jakarta post</term><term>January</term><term>July</term><term>June</term><term>Malaysia</term><term>Member states</term><term>Myanmar</term><term>November</term><term>October</term><term>Petcharamesree</term><term>Pietropaoli</term><term>Rights bodies</term><term>Rights declaration</term><term>Rights mechanism</term><term>Singapore</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">The Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) is a regional body working towards the integration of disparate states. The creation of a human rights mechanism, a critical part of this integration, confronts the central philosophy of ASEAN: deference to conservative notions of sovereignty and non-interference, often referred to as the ASEAN Way. This doctrine has been necessary to promote cooperation and trust between these neighbours but may prove incongruent with a human rights body that attempts to monitor and enforce international human rights law. This article looks at the challenges posed by the ASEAN way and how they developed in section 2. Section 3 follows with an examination of the ASEAN Way’s impact on the development of the regional human rights bodies. Section 4 addresses structural problems arising from the ASEAN Way: the limited human rights mandate; the lack of civil society participation; and the lack of common human rights standards among ASEAN states. Overall, this article examines the central irony that the while the ASEAN Way is necessary, it undermines the regional human rights body.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>brill-journals</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>asean</json:string><json:string>human rights</json:string><json:string>aichr</json:string><json:string>ibid</json:string><json:string>pietropaoli</json:string><json:string>aguirre</json:string><json:string>acwc</json:string><json:string>member states</json:string><json:string>myanmar</json:string><json:string>civil society</json:string><json:string>august</json:string><json:string>april</json:string><json:string>asean charter</json:string><json:string>singapore</json:string><json:string>malaysia</json:string><json:string>july</json:string><json:string>asean states</json:string><json:string>rights mechanism</json:string><json:string>january</json:string><json:string>african charter</json:string><json:string>november</json:string><json:string>rights declaration</json:string><json:string>june</json:string><json:string>december</json:string><json:string>petcharamesree</json:string><json:string>bangkok</json:string><json:string>asean member states</json:string><json:string>jakarta post</json:string><json:string>rights bodies</json:string><json:string>brunei</json:string><json:string>bangkok declaration</json:string><json:string>ahrd</json:string><json:string>csos</json:string><json:string>african commission</json:string><json:string>asean commission</json:string><json:string>aichr terms</json:string><json:string>october</json:string><json:string>jakarta</json:string><json:string>domestic affairs</json:string><json:string>first meeting</json:string><json:string>east asia</json:string><json:string>internal affairs</json:string><json:string>nasu</json:string><json:string>governance</json:string><json:string>foreign affairs</json:string><json:string>international relations</json:string><json:string>human rights standards</json:string><json:string>regional system</json:string><json:string>civil society participation</json:string><json:string>asean secretariat</json:string><json:string>asian values</json:string><json:string>press release</json:string><json:string>rights institutions</json:string><json:string>rights mechanisms</json:string><json:string>civil society organizations</json:string><json:string>acwc terms</json:string><json:string>human rights policy</json:string><json:string>human rights body</json:string><json:string>rights system</json:string><json:string>rights body</json:string><json:string>rights violations</json:string><json:string>asean community</json:string><json:string>brunei darussalam</json:string><json:string>regional order</json:string><json:string>human rights mechanism</json:string><json:string>asean summit</json:string><json:string>human rights treaties</json:string><json:string>human rights violations</json:string><json:string>asean intergovernamental commission</json:string><json:string>rights standards</json:string><json:string>full version</json:string><json:string>human rights discourse</json:string><json:string>american convention</json:string><json:string>asean members</json:string><json:string>joint communiqu</json:string><json:string>thailand</json:string><json:string>asean leaders</json:string><json:string>economic growth</json:string><json:string>bounkeut sangsomsak</json:string><json:string>asean peoples</json:string><json:string>legal components</json:string><json:string>national security</json:string><json:string>limited mandate</json:string><json:string>regional level</json:string><json:string>rights protection</json:string><json:string>pacific review</json:string><json:string>external interference</json:string><json:string>regional integration</json:string><json:string>lynne rienner</json:string><json:string>human rights issues</json:string><json:string>asian values debate</json:string><json:string>seventh meeting</json:string><json:string>economic stability</json:string><json:string>social development</json:string><json:string>security cooperation</json:string><json:string>draft asean</json:string><json:string>international justice resource centre</json:string><json:string>human rights protection</json:string><json:string>universal ratification</json:string><json:string>asian nations</json:string><json:string>thai representative</json:string><json:string>state party</json:string><json:string>asean policy</json:string><json:string>asian peoples</json:string><json:string>cultural relativism</json:string><json:string>national interests</json:string><json:string>second meeting</json:string><json:string>cambodia</json:string><json:string>saul</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Daniel Aguirre</name><affiliations><json:string>Lecturer in International Law, Regent’s College, London, UK, aguirred@regents.ac.uk</json:string><json:string>E-mail: aguirred@regents.ac.uk</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Irene Pietropaoli</name><affiliations><json:string>PhD Candidate, Middlesex University, London, UK, I.Pietropaoli@mdx.ac.uk</json:string><json:string>E-mail: I.Pietropaoli@mdx.ac.uk</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>ASEAN</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>regional human rights mechanism</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>sovereignty</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>non-interference</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Asia</value></json:item></subject><arkIstex>ark:/67375/JKT-5HQ9V4RP-K</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) is a regional body working towards the integration of disparate states. The creation of a human rights mechanism, a critical part of this integration, confronts the central philosophy of ASEAN: deference to conservative notions of sovereignty and non-interference, often referred to as the ASEAN Way. This doctrine has been necessary to promote cooperation and trust between these neighbours but may prove incongruent with a human rights body that attempts to monitor and enforce international human rights law. This article looks at the challenges posed by the ASEAN way and how they developed in section 2. Section 3 follows with an examination of the ASEAN Way’s impact on the development of the regional human rights bodies. Section 4 addresses structural problems arising from the ASEAN Way: the limited human rights mandate; the lack of civil society participation; and the lack of common human rights standards among ASEAN states. Overall, this article examines the central irony that the while the ASEAN Way is necessary, it undermines the regional human rights body.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.076</score><pdfWordCount>15056</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>93163</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>36</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>439.37 x 666.142 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>173</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1121</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Human Rights Protection the ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and the Newest Regional Human Rights System</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><title>International Human Rights Law Review</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><issn><json:string>2213-1027</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>2213-1035</json:string></eissn><volume>1</volume><issue>2</issue><pages><first>276</first><last>311</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2011</json:string><json:string>April and May of 2010</json:string><json:string>2016</json:string><json:string>2005</json:string><json:string>2012</json:string><json:string>1993</json:string><json:string>2006</json:string><json:string>1971</json:string><json:string>1976</json:string><json:string>1994</json:string><json:string>2014</json:string><json:string>First Century</json:string><json:string>2010</json:string><json:string>1991</json:string><json:string>June and July of 2010</json:string><json:string>2015</json:string><json:string>1967</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Victoria University</json:string><json:string>Inter-American Human Rights System</json:string><json:string>Lund University</json:string><json:string>African Commission on Human and People</json:string><json:string>African Commission on Individual Communications</json:string><json:string>African Commission on Human and Peoples</json:string><json:string>Inter-American Court</json:string><json:string>Intergovernamental Commission on Human Rights</json:string><json:string>Vietnam, Laos</json:string><json:string>Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore</json:string><json:string>Inter-American System</json:string><json:string>ASEAN Commission on Women and Children</json:string><json:string>Transparency International</json:string><json:string>Malaysia and Vietnam</json:string><json:string>Gambia, Senegal, and Botswana</json:string><json:string>Mahidol University</json:string><json:string>US, UN</json:string><json:string>Nigeria, Communication</json:string><json:string>Commission on Human Rights</json:string><json:string>Singapore Journal of Legal Studies</json:string><json:string>American Convention, Article</json:string><json:string>American Journal of International Law</json:string><json:string>University of Malaya</json:string><json:string>Amnesty International</json:string><json:string>Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights</json:string><json:string>National Institutions</json:string><json:string>Brunei Darussalam</json:string><json:string>Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand</json:string><json:string>Organization</json:string><json:string>Global Human Rights Instruments</json:string><json:string>ASEAN Committee on Women</json:string><json:string>Inter-American Convention</json:string><json:string>The Cambodian Center for Human Rights</json:string><json:string>NAM Region International Seminar</json:string><json:string>Burma, ASEAN, and Human Rights</json:string><json:string>NAM Center for Cultural Diversity</json:string><json:string>American Convention on Human Rights</json:string><json:string>Laos, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Singapore</json:string><json:string>Mahidol University, Thailand</json:string><json:string>Inter-American and African Commissions</json:string><json:string>Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Myanmar</json:string><json:string>AICHR</json:string><json:string>OHRSD</json:string><json:string>National News Bureau of Thailand</json:string><json:string>Indonesia and Thailand</json:string><json:string>East Timor and Aceh</json:string><json:string>Inter-American Commission</json:string><json:string>New York University</json:string><json:string>Myanmar’s National Reconciliation and Democratization</json:string><json:string>Vietnam and Cambodia</json:string><json:string>Thailand, Press Release</json:string><json:string>American Convention</json:string><json:string>University of Iowa</json:string><json:string>ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection</json:string><json:string>Indonesia, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Singapore</json:string><json:string>Inter-American Court of Human Rights</json:string><json:string>Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, ASEAN Secretariat</json:string><json:string>Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights</json:string><json:string>ASEAN</json:string><json:string>Brunei and Malaysia</json:string><json:string>Organization of African Unity, Draft Protocol</json:string><json:string>Office of Human Rights Studies and Social Development</json:string><json:string>Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia</json:string><json:string>Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, Thailand, and Malaysia</json:string><json:string>Economic Rights Action Center</json:string><json:string>Laos and Myanmar</json:string><json:string>ASEAN Legal Systems</json:string><json:string>Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam</json:string><json:string>Thailand, Indonesia</json:string><json:string>Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand</json:string><json:string>Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia</json:string><json:string>Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore</json:string><json:string>Cambodia and Laos</json:string><json:string>Both Laos and Vietnam</json:string><json:string>Inter-American Human Rights Regime</json:string><json:string>Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights</json:string><json:string>Regional and National Human Rights Institutions</json:string><json:string>China, the ASEAN</json:string><json:string>Commission, Court</json:string><json:string>Burma Rebels Killed</json:string><json:string>Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand</json:string><json:string>The International Politics</json:string><json:string>Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia</json:string><json:string>Singapore Declaration</json:string><json:string>Malaysia, Singapore</json:string><json:string>Laos, Cambodia</json:string><json:string>Association of Southeast Asian Nations</json:string><json:string>ASEAN Commission on Promotion and Protection</json:string><json:string>Middlesex University</json:string><json:string>American and the African Commissions</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Asia Tenggara</json:string><json:string>Rosario G. Manalo</json:string><json:string>Nicholas Thomas</json:string><json:string>Joanne Bauer</json:string><json:string>Pacific Region</json:string><json:string>H.E. Bounkeut</json:string><json:string>Herald Tribune</json:string><json:string>Djamin</json:string><json:string>Daniel Bell</json:string><json:string>I. Pietropaoli</json:string><json:string>Ridha Saleh</json:string><json:string>Laos</json:string><json:string>Real World</json:string><json:string>Sriprapha Petcharamesree</json:string><json:string>Damien Kingsbury</json:string><json:string>Viet Nam</json:string><json:string>Simon Sheldon</json:string><json:string>H.E. Pehin</json:string><json:string>An Idea</json:string><json:string>O.A.U. Doc</json:string><json:string>Om Yin</json:string><json:string>Will Haunt</json:string><json:string>Don Nanjira</json:string><json:string>Abdul Hamid</json:string><json:string>Nicholas Wheeler</json:string><json:string>D. Aguirre</json:string><json:string>Asia-Pacific Review</json:string><json:string>Pacific Review</json:string><json:string>H.E. Bounkeu</json:string><json:string>Rafendi Djamin</json:string><json:string>James Tang</json:string><json:string>Procedure</json:string><json:string>Om Yentieng</json:string><json:string>Pacific Law</json:string><json:string>Tan Dung</json:string><json:string>U.N. Doc</json:string><json:string>Paris Principles</json:string><json:string>Asia Forum</json:string><json:string>Will Work</json:string><json:string>I.Pietropaoli</json:string><json:string>Francisco Rivera</json:string><json:string>Robert Dahl</json:string><json:string>Jaqueline Mowbray</json:string><json:string>Asia Pacific</json:string><json:string>Real Cultures</json:string><json:string>Alan Collis</json:string><json:string>Government</json:string><json:string>Richard Magnus</json:string><json:string>Pacific Asia</json:string><json:string>Human Rights</json:string><json:string>Tom Farer</json:string><json:string>The Practice</json:string><json:string>G.A. Res</json:string><json:string>Diane Mauzy</json:string><json:string>Tan Hsien-Li</json:string><json:string>H.E. Om</json:string><json:string>Irene Baghoomians</json:string><json:string>Ngoc Son</json:string><json:string>Raymond Lim</json:string><json:string>Affairs</json:string><json:string>Li Tan</json:string><json:string>See L Avonious</json:string><json:string>Wayne Arnold</json:string><json:string>Rosario Manalo</json:string><json:string>Petcharamesree</json:string><json:string>Ratification</json:string><json:string>Tim Dunne</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Leiden</json:string><json:string>Stanford</json:string><json:string>Cambodia</json:string><json:string>Malaysia</json:string><json:string>Singapore</json:string><json:string>Vietnam</json:string><json:string>United States</json:string><json:string>Thailand</json:string><json:string>Jakarta</json:string><json:string>Tunis</json:string><json:string>UK</json:string><json:string>Bangkok</json:string><json:string>Brunei</json:string><json:string>Kuala Lumpur</json:string><json:string>Melbourne</json:string><json:string>Manila</json:string><json:string>London</json:string><json:string>Tunisia</json:string><json:string>China</json:string><json:string>Laos</json:string><json:string>Europe</json:string><json:string>Cebu</json:string><json:string>Vienna</json:string><json:string>Philippines</json:string><json:string>Indonesia</json:string><json:string>New Internaationalist</json:string><json:string>Vientiane</json:string><json:string>Burma</json:string><json:string>Cambridge</json:string></placeName><ref_url><json:string>http://www.aseansec.org</json:string><json:string>http://www.youtube.com/watch</json:string><json:string>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NE</json:string><json:string>http://www.aseansec.org/</json:string><json:string>http://www.aseansec.org/politics/pramm</json:string><json:string>http://www.aseansec.org/DOC-TOR-AHRB.pdf</json:string><json:string>http://www.fnf.org.ph/liberallibrary/roadmap-for-asean-human-rights.htm</json:string></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>April 2012</json:string><json:string>Shandu et al</json:string><json:string>Macmillan, 2008</json:string><json:string>Cambridge UP, 1999</json:string><json:string>Singapore Institute for International Affairs, 2002</json:string><json:string>Routledge, 2004</json:string><json:string>Routledge, 2009</json:string><json:string>Durbach et al.</json:string><json:string>Cornell University Press, 1989</json:string><json:string>Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, 2003</json:string><json:string>adopted November 30, 2004</json:string><json:string>Cambridge University Press, 2003</json:string><json:string>Blackwell, 1992</json:string><json:string>Oxford UP, 2002</json:string><json:string>July 2009</json:string><json:string>Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2010</json:string><json:string>Martinus Nijhoff, 1997</json:string><json:string>Cambridge UP, 2011</json:string><json:string>Saul et al.</json:string><json:string>Lynne Rienner, 2002</json:string><json:string>Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung, 1986</json:string><json:string>Centre for Strategic and International Studies, 1995</json:string><json:string>November 2004</json:string><json:string>July 19-20, 1991</json:string><json:string>Routledge, 2002</json:string><json:string>Lynne Rienner, 1988</json:string><json:string>November 2009</json:string><json:string>Westview Press, 1995</json:string><json:string>January 2012</json:string><json:string>December 12, 2005</json:string><json:string>Sandhu et al</json:string><json:string>signed June 25, 1993</json:string><json:string>Routledge, 2001</json:string><json:string>UNESCO, 2003</json:string><json:string>Lynne Rienner, Boulder 2003</json:string><json:string>Times Books International, 1998</json:string><json:string>July 1993</json:string><json:string>Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997</json:string><json:string>Carlos Medina et al.</json:string><json:string>Greenwood Press, 1985</json:string><json:string>Routledge, 2011</json:string><json:string>November 2007</json:string><json:string>Frances Pinter, 1980</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/JKT-5HQ9V4RP-K</json:string></ark><categories><wos></wos><scienceMetrix></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - Law</json:string><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - Sociology and Political Science</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2012</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2012</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1163/22131035-00102003</json:string></doi><id>25F10651E462A2B104FC5FFAE5631BF89A8075C4</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/25F10651E462A2B104FC5FFAE5631BF89A8075C4/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/25F10651E462A2B104FC5FFAE5631BF89A8075C4/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/25F10651E462A2B104FC5FFAE5631BF89A8075C4/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">Human Rights Protection the ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and the Newest Regional Human Rights System</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">Martinus Nijhoff Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Leiden</pubPlace><availability><licence><p>© 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</p></licence><p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-56W3KPD5-3">brill-journals</p></availability><date>2012</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note><note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">Human Rights Protection the ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and the Newest Regional Human Rights System</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Daniel</forename><surname>Aguirre</surname></persName><email>aguirred@regents.ac.uk</email><affiliation>Lecturer in International Law, Regent’s College, London, UK, aguirred@regents.ac.uk</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Irene</forename><surname>Pietropaoli</surname></persName><email>I.Pietropaoli@mdx.ac.uk</email><affiliation>PhD Candidate, Middlesex University, London, UK, I.Pietropaoli@mdx.ac.uk</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">25F10651E462A2B104FC5FFAE5631BF89A8075C4</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/JKT-5HQ9V4RP-K</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1163/22131035-00102003</idno><idno type="href">22131035_001_02_S03_text.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">International Human Rights Law Review</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">HRLR</title><idno type="pISSN">2213-1027</idno><idno type="eISSN">2213-1035</idno><imprint><publisher>Martinus Nijhoff Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Leiden</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2012"></date><biblScope unit="volume">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="276">276</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="311">311</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2012</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>The Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) is a regional body working towards the integration of disparate states. The creation of a human rights mechanism, a critical part of this integration, confronts the central philosophy of ASEAN: deference to conservative notions of sovereignty and non-interference, often referred to as the ASEAN Way. This doctrine has been necessary to promote cooperation and trust between these neighbours but may prove incongruent with a human rights body that attempts to monitor and enforce international human rights law. This article looks at the challenges posed by the ASEAN way and how they developed in section 2. Section 3 follows with an examination of the ASEAN Way’s impact on the development of the regional human rights bodies. Section 4 addresses structural problems arising from the ASEAN Way: the limited human rights mandate; the lack of civil society participation; and the lack of common human rights standards among ASEAN states. Overall, this article examines the central irony that the while the ASEAN Way is necessary, it undermines the regional human rights body.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>ASEAN</term></item><item><term>regional human rights mechanism</term></item><item><term>sovereignty</term></item><item><term>non-interference</term></item><item><term>Asia</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2012">Created</change><change when="2012">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-10-2">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/25F10651E462A2B104FC5FFAE5631BF89A8075C4/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus brill-journals not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/2.3/journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="e-issn">22131035</journal-id>
<journal-title>International Human Rights Law Review</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title>HRLR</abbrev-journal-title>
<issn pub-type="ppub">2213-1027</issn>
<issn pub-type="epub">2213-1035</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Martinus Nijhoff Publishers</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Leiden</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1163/22131035-00102003</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
<subject>Articles</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>Human Rights Protection the ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and the Newest Regional Human Rights System</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Aguirre</surname><given-names>Daniel</given-names></name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>a</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Pietropaoli</surname><given-names>Irene</given-names></name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>b</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<aff id="aff1">
<label>a)</label>Lecturer in International Law, <institution>Regent’s College</institution>, London, <country>UK</country>, <email>aguirred@regents.ac.uk</email></aff>
<aff id="aff2">
<label>b)</label>PhD Candidate, <institution>Middlesex University</institution>, London, <country>UK</country>, <email>I.Pietropaoli@mdx.ac.uk</email></aff>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="epub"><year>2012</year></pub-date>
<volume>1</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<fpage>276</fpage>
<lpage>311</lpage>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>© 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2012</copyright-year>
<copyright-holder>Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing and IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.</copyright-holder>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="22131035_001_02_S03_text.pdf"></self-uri>
<abstract>
<p>The Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) is a regional body working towards the integration of disparate states. The creation of a human rights mechanism, a critical part of this integration, confronts the central philosophy of ASEAN: deference to conservative notions of sovereignty and non-interference, often referred to as the ASEAN Way. This doctrine has been necessary to promote cooperation and trust between these neighbours but may prove incongruent with a human rights body that attempts to monitor and enforce international human rights law. This article looks at the challenges posed by the ASEAN way and how they developed in section 2. Section 3 follows with an examination of the ASEAN Way’s impact on the development of the regional human rights bodies. Section 4 addresses structural problems arising from the ASEAN Way: the limited human rights mandate; the lack of civil society participation; and the lack of common human rights standards among ASEAN states. Overall, this article examines the central irony that the while the ASEAN Way is necessary, it undermines the regional human rights body.</p>
</abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd>ASEAN</kwd>
<kwd>regional human rights mechanism</kwd>
<kwd>sovereignty</kwd>
<kwd>non-interference</kwd>
<kwd>Asia</kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec sec-type="head1" id="B10.1163_22131035_00102003_001"><label>1.</label><title>Introduction</title>
<p>As the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) develops a regional human rights system, it must overcome legal, political and social challenges. In Southeast Asia, human rights law is unevenly implemented and often viewed as a foreign concept. Regional resistance to human rights law has been manifest in ASEAN policy and often reflected the cultural relativism debate.<xref rid="fn1" ref-type="fn"><sup>1</sup></xref> This marginalization reflects an absence of democratic participation, resulting in the marginalization of competing voices in civil society.<xref rid="fn2" ref-type="fn"><sup>2</sup></xref> Despite the cooling of relativist rhetoric,<xref rid="fn3" ref-type="fn"><sup>3</sup></xref> human rights still confront authoritarianism nourished by strong assertions of sovereignty. This sovereignty is protected by the norm of non-interference<xref rid="fn4" ref-type="fn"><sup>4</sup></xref> and justified by member-state claims that human rights threaten stability, limit their economic development policy and impede their ability to attract foreign investment.<xref rid="fn5" ref-type="fn"><sup>5</sup></xref></p>
<p>Emphasis on non-interference and informal, consensual engagement is historically embedded in ASEAN activity and referred to as the ASEAN Way.<xref rid="fn6" ref-type="fn"><sup>6</sup></xref></p>
<p>Despite the lack of a clear definition, the ASEAN Way often refers to a mechanism of dispute management through the process of consensus and consultation built upon regional reliance, non-interference in domestic affairs and avoidance of military alliance. The ASEAN Way is characterized by compromise and consultation, consensus building, ambiguity, avoidance of strict reciprocity, and rejection of hard legalization.<xref rid="fn7" ref-type="fn"><sup>7</sup></xref></p>
<p>While all states are reluctant to cede sovereignty to a regional human rights organization, ASEAN member states have resisted forming a system much longer and have opposed human rights law both in theory and practice. Despite ASEAN’s political aversion to binding treaties, the ASEAN Way is legally enshrined in the 1976 <italic>Treaty of Amity and Cooperation</italic> and continues to inform regional legal developments.<xref rid="fn8" ref-type="fn"><sup>8</sup></xref> While these principles encourage stable cooperation, they will prevent the strict monitoring, implementation and enforcement of regional human rights law and complicate legal amalgamation in the region.<xref rid="fn9" ref-type="fn"><sup>9</sup></xref></p>
<p>Until recently, human rights have not featured in ASEAN, as it is primarily an economic and security union. It was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand by five states: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.<xref rid="fn10" ref-type="fn"><sup>10</sup></xref> The organization was born in a post-colonial power vacuum amid a fear of communism.<xref rid="fn11" ref-type="fn"><sup>11</sup></xref> Priority was afforded to economic development, attracting investment and political stability.<xref rid="fn12" ref-type="fn"><sup>12</sup></xref> ASEAN’s short history arguably reveals priorities of national security and safeguarding elite interests.<xref rid="fn13" ref-type="fn"><sup>13</sup></xref> After the Cold War, ASEAN admitted its underdeveloped and communist neighbours: Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia.<xref rid="fn14" ref-type="fn"><sup>14</sup></xref> Its objectives remained to protect members’ sovereignty,<xref rid="fn15" ref-type="fn"><sup>15</sup></xref> to accelerate regional economic growth<xref rid="fn16" ref-type="fn"><sup>16</sup></xref> and to safeguard stability.<xref rid="fn17" ref-type="fn"><sup>17</sup></xref> Faced with a rapidly globalizing world of regional blocs, ASEAN sought to ‘move towards a higher plane of political and economic cooperation to secure regional peace and prosperity.’<xref rid="fn18" ref-type="fn"><sup>18</sup></xref> They did so with remarkably few binding treaties – a process facilitated by the ASEAN Way.</p>
<p>ASEAN puts forward that human rights ‘should remain within the competence and responsibility of each country,’ and it should not reduce national sovereignty.<xref rid="fn19" ref-type="fn"><sup>19</sup></xref> Nevertheless, in July 1993, ASEAN member states met in Singapore<xref rid="fn20" ref-type="fn"><sup>20</sup></xref> and agreed that ‘ASEAN should coordinate a common approach on human rights and actively participate and contribute to the application, promotion and protection of human rights.’<xref rid="fn21" ref-type="fn"><sup>21</sup></xref> This joint communiqué outlined ASEAN’s theoretical commitment to human rights and considered ‘the establishment of an appropriate regional mechanism’.<xref rid="fn22" ref-type="fn"><sup>22</sup></xref> In its <italic>1993 Bangkok Declaration</italic> ASEAN reemphasized that human rights were subject to the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference.<xref rid="fn23" ref-type="fn"><sup>23</sup></xref></p>
<p>In practice, ASEAN has traditionally marginalized human rights law and opposed reference to it in relations with foreign states, international organizations and civil society in the region.<xref rid="fn24" ref-type="fn"><sup>24</sup></xref> Li-ann Thio explains that, ‘Awakening a “rights consciousness” in ASEAN peoples was to be avoided as it might provoke claims against their governments that, ASEAN leaders felt, would impede the exercise of broad government powers required to achieve development goals.’<xref rid="fn25" ref-type="fn"><sup>25</sup></xref> Instead, ASEAN promoted regional harmony, compromise and consensus that have led to a fraternal silence concerning human rights violations.</p>
<p>Does the formation of the ASEAN human rights bodies mark the first steps towards changing the ASEAN Way or are they a façade masking business as usual? Is this a cynical exercise to add legitimacy to foreign and regional investment in the region? Trade regimes have increasingly adopted the language of human rights to suit trade and investment goals.<xref rid="fn26" ref-type="fn"><sup>26</sup></xref></p>
<p>Part One of this article scrutinizes the specific challenges resulting from the ASEAN Way that dominates regional relations and informs persistent reluctance to accept human rights law responsibility. It looks at why the ASEAN Way has developed and its diplomatic and legal components. Section two outlines the ASEAN Way’s impact on the development of the new ASEAN regional human rights system. It examines human rights related segments of the ASEAN Charter, the process of setting up the regional human rights bodies and the preliminary results of the drafting of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. Section three addresses structural problems arising from the ASEAN Way: the limited mandate of the ASEAN human rights bodies; the lack of civil society participation; and the problems presented by the lack of common human rights standards among ASEAN member states.</p>
<p>Overall, this article examines the fundamental obstacles that have long delayed a regional human rights mechanism and do not naturally conform to individual human rights values. It does so despite a dearth of official documents available from ASEAN human rights bodies and therefore relies on secondary sources and leaked documents. Nevertheless, the central irony is apparent: the ASEAN Way is necessary for regional political and economic cooperation but antithesis to regional human rights monitoring and enforcement. The ASEAN Way complicates a convergence between diverse member states characterized by mutual suspicion, operational resistance and the disingenuous application of human rights nationally. Key to resolving this at the regional level will be genuine civil society participation, the creation of a legitimate charter of human rights and a softening of the non-interference policy to allow the body to monitor and investigate human rights abuses. Human rights must develop at the national level first.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="B10.1163_22131035_00102003_002" sec-type="head1"><label>2.</label><title>The ASEAN Way and Human Rights</title>
<p>The ASEAN Way developed to provide stability by checking the regional political ambitions of member states. This allows regional cooperation on a variety of political and economic initiatives. The original members developed the doctrine as a balance of powers within the region to avoid the dominance of any particular state.<xref rid="fn27" ref-type="fn"><sup>27</sup></xref> It improved diplomatic relations between members during the Cold War and allowed them to confront communism.<xref rid="fn28" ref-type="fn"><sup>28</sup></xref> Indeed, ASEAN has promoted a cooperative relationship that reduces the risk of violent conflict between mutually suspicious members by avoiding interference and through the use of informal engagement rather than strict legal standards.</p>
<p>In the field of human rights protection, however, the ASEAN Way inhibits progress as consensus is required for change. Human rights diplomacy and legal enforcement are regarded as interference and therefore in contravention of ASEAN’s underlying principles. The ASEAN Way, built upon a conservative vision of non-intervention and sovereignty,<xref rid="fn29" ref-type="fn"><sup>29</sup></xref> designates the domestic affairs of member states beyond the originations’s limits and allows states to label human rights monitoring as interference.<xref rid="fn30" ref-type="fn"><sup>30</sup></xref> ASEAN member states do not uniformly accept legal principles that elevate human rights above domestic jurisdiction. Nor do they accept that sovereignty undergoes fundamental changes in cooperation with a functioning regional human rights protection mechanism.<xref rid="fn31" ref-type="fn"><sup>31</sup></xref> The reality of political and economic security amongst diverse states means the ASEAN Way will continue to influence regional development. The ASEAN Way dominates ASEAN’s history, while integration remains relatively new. It is a permanent feature of regional relations in direct conflict with traditional notions of human rights law.</p>
<p>Levitar, in the context of economic integration, explains that the ASEAN Way can be understood as having both diplomatic and legal components that prevent regional confluence.<xref rid="fn32" ref-type="fn"><sup>32</sup></xref> ASEAN diplomatic strategy uses informal discussions to later facilitate consensus-based decisions<xref rid="fn33" ref-type="fn"><sup>33</sup></xref> allowing member states to determine areas of agreement and isolate contentious topics. As a result, ASEAN sets aside controversial issues, and its institutions can only develop slowly.<xref rid="fn34" ref-type="fn"><sup>34</sup></xref> It is certain that binding regional human rights standards will fall into this category; institutions charged with monitoring them will be sidelined or very weak. The ASEAN Way represents a formalized commitment to relations-based international relations relying on trust and familiarity. Yet the diversity of the states involved means that little progress requiring the reduction of sovereignty – whether it is economic, political or legal integration - is possible.</p>
<p>The second component of the ASEAN way is legal, first included in the <italic>Treaty of Amity and Cooperation</italic> and then reasserted in the <italic>Bangkok Declaration</italic>, which informs the creation of new regional treaties as is explained in part two of this article. The six behavioural principles set forth in the <italic>Treaty of Amity and Cooperation</italic> that collectively impede regional development are: (1) respect for state sovereignty; (2) freedom from external interference; (3) non-interference in internal affairs; (4) peaceful dispute settlement; (5) renunciation of the use of force; and (6) cooperation. Of these, members emphasize non-interference in internal affairs over all others.<xref rid="fn35" ref-type="fn"><sup>35</sup></xref> While not strictly binding, as is usual with ASEAN agreements, the principle of non-interference that they emphasize has been invoked by members against regional integration in order to assert the primacy of domestic interests.<xref rid="fn36" ref-type="fn"><sup>36</sup></xref> Consensual diplomacy means that the least restrictive measures are likely to prevail while non-interference restricts the member states’ ability to hold each other accountable. As a result, regional human rights law is likely to take the form of soft law with vague principles and weak enforcement.<xref rid="fn37" ref-type="fn"><sup>37</sup></xref></p>
<p>The political and legal components of the ASEAN Way impede institutional development and present a significant barrier to change. As Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines push for a more centralized ASEAN that includes human rights, the principle of non-interference empowers Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Myanmar to impede such institutional initiatives.<xref rid="fn38" ref-type="fn"><sup>38</sup></xref> Accordingly, ASEAN is subject to the cooperative willingness of its member states, which was ASEAN’s original intention. The problem is that the original intention of the organization, unlike other regional bodies in Africa, Europe and the Americas, did not include a commitment to human rights. The ASEAN Way is not compatible with the enforcement of human rights law because regional monitoring entails interference in domestic affairs. Human rights law governs the relationship between the state and its citizens. In order for a regional body to protect and promote human rights law, this relationship must be scrutinized, eroding the principle of non-intervention.</p>
<p>Now that ASEAN has begun to address regional human rights, it must confront inconsistent legal systems, political systems and law enforcement mechanisms. This coordination requires overarching regional standards as well as institutions capable of monitoring and enforcing them. In practice, ASEAN member states rarely criticize their neighbours’ internal affairs, especially on human rights issues. Rather, ASEAN members have provided political support against destabilizing activities.<xref rid="fn39" ref-type="fn"><sup>39</sup></xref> For example, conflicts in East Timor and Aceh were deemed Indonesia’s internal issues and on-going conflicts in the South of Thailand<xref rid="fn40" ref-type="fn"><sup>40</sup></xref> and the south of the Philippines are off limits to official human rights discourse.</p>
<p>The colour coded political crisis in Thailand shook regional stability in ASEAN. During the ‘Battle of Bangkok’ in April and May of 2010, states tentatively discussed internal affairs. Indonesia called for ASEAN to push Thailand to settle the conflict peacefully, while Vietnam and Cambodia recommended establishing a summit to coordinate a resolution.<xref rid="fn41" ref-type="fn"><sup>41</sup></xref> The neighbours’ responses may have been politically motivated<xref rid="fn42" ref-type="fn"><sup>42</sup></xref> and indicate the organization’s preoccupation with political and economic stability over addressing the systematic human rights violations of member states. The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) representative from Thailand moved the Commission forward, urging the two parties to negotiate and the AICHR to appoint a regional fact finding team to investigate human rights’ violations.<xref rid="fn43" ref-type="fn"><sup>43</sup></xref> But the Thai government rejected ASEAN initiatives and refused outside assistance as interference in its domestic affairs. The eventual ASEAN response to Thailand was limited. At the 16th ASEAN summit held on 8th April 2010 the issue was not raised. Finally, a single statement was issued by ASEAN which mentioned that ‘peace, stability and the development of Thailand are crucial for driving the region towards the target of becoming the ASEAN community in 2015.’</p>
<p>But it is Myanmar that provides the clearest example of the political stalemate concerning human rights caused by the ASEAN Way of politics. The norms of non-intervention have been long evident in the ASEAN policy of engagement with Myanmar,<xref rid="fn44" ref-type="fn"><sup>44</sup></xref> where human rights abuses are not confronted despite sustained criticism from the international community.<xref rid="fn45" ref-type="fn"><sup>45</sup></xref> The ASEAN Way ties the hands of the organization to reign in the military in Myanmar.<xref rid="fn46" ref-type="fn"><sup>46</sup></xref> ASEAN instead promotes engagement with Myanmar’s government and holds that this is the most effective way of promoting change in the country. While this may weaken ASEAN’s human rights legitimacy it must be seen within the context that places priority on regional economic development and the maintenance of domestic sovereignty.</p>
<p>Myanmar’s leadership proposal has raised concerns that the country’s poor democratic and human rights records may jeopardize efforts to form an ASEAN community by 2015. Rafendi Djamin, Indonesia’s representative to the AICHR and former chairman said that Myanmar should be given the chance to show its commitment to improving human rights as it could, ‘encourage the country to show ASEAN and the world that it is committed to improving its national situation.’<xref rid="fn47" ref-type="fn"><sup>47</sup></xref> He said that by participating in AICHR, Myanmar had shown its effort to improve, although the most important thing was to resolve its human rights issues.<xref rid="fn48" ref-type="fn"><sup>48</sup></xref></p>
<p>Myanmar’s rapid reforms of 2012 demonstrate the complex relationship between human rights and non-interference. Proponents argue that engagement by ASEAN has allowed the Junta to come out of isolation. Bhasin argues: ‘Over the years ASEAN members continued to implement their policy of ‘constructive engagement’ by not criticizing the Burmese government in public while continuing to trade and invest in Myanmar’s economy, thus providing it a lifeline’.<xref rid="fn49" ref-type="fn"><sup>49</sup></xref> Yet detractors cite the pressure applied by western sanctions as the catalyst of reform. Mendes argues that, ‘Recent reforms in Burma indicate that using economic and foreign aid leverage can produce dramatic democratic and human rights results.’<xref rid="fn50" ref-type="fn"><sup>50</sup></xref> This latter argument asserts that ASEAN engagement has only slowed this progress.</p>
<p>Relative change in Myanmar should be viewed in the context of international human rights law. Even after reform, the regime still violates a full range of civil, political, social and economic human rights. Despite elections in April 2012, the government is based on a constitution foisted upon the people in a farcical referendum. It is a document ‘of the army, by the army and for the army,’ according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.<xref rid="fn51" ref-type="fn"><sup>51</sup></xref> The constitution undermines serious human rights based reform while justifying the lifting of sanctions and the opening of trade, which in turn benefits the generals who have a monopoly over business in the country.<xref rid="fn52" ref-type="fn"><sup>52</sup></xref></p>
<p>In this way, the regional human rights mechanisms risk legitimizing the status quo in ASEAN member states. It may help to relieve the pressures from other states, from influential supranational political entities, or from their own communities.<xref rid="fn53" ref-type="fn"><sup>53</sup></xref> Human rights treaties serve as a signalling device: ‘states ratify human rights treaties after periods of regional crisis as a way to attract aid from the major international donors’.<xref rid="fn54" ref-type="fn"><sup>54</sup></xref> Signalling that they intend to become more democratic or even that they are moving towards human rights, it is argued, can result in substantial material benefits from the international community through development aid or other assistance.<xref rid="fn55" ref-type="fn"><sup>55</sup></xref> Giving development aid to extremely corrupted governments – for example Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar ranking respectively number 154, 164 and 180 out of 182 countries in the 2011 Corruption Perception Index<xref rid="fn56" ref-type="fn"><sup>56</sup></xref>- has the risk to reinforce authoritarian regimes that deny human rights despite their formal commitments.</p>
<p>The priority placed on economic development and attracting investment, coupled with the belief that human rights interfere with development policy, challenge the concept of a functioning human rights body. Absolute gains of economic collaboration have forged the ASEAN identity, yet relative gains and national interests still prevail in times of domestic or regional instability.<xref rid="fn57" ref-type="fn"><sup>57</sup></xref> Some member states are suspicious of any regional expansion of human rights law in ASEAN.<xref rid="fn58" ref-type="fn"><sup>58</sup></xref> While members readily participate in human rights dialogue at the United Nations, they continue to stress a development-first approach,<xref rid="fn59" ref-type="fn"><sup>59</sup></xref> emphasizing economic growth over human rights.<xref rid="fn60" ref-type="fn"><sup>60</sup></xref></p>
<p>Members insist that development is a precondition for human rights<xref rid="fn61" ref-type="fn"><sup>61</sup></xref> and the primary source of political and social change,<xref rid="fn62" ref-type="fn"><sup>62</sup></xref> with little regional evidence to back this claim.<xref rid="fn63" ref-type="fn"><sup>63</sup></xref> It is clear that rapid regional development has not resulted in the widespread enjoyment of human rights. Linking development aid or investment with human rights is resisted by ASEAN states, with engagement promoted as the catalyst of human rights. Yet, the sudden about face on human rights policy in ASEAN may reflect the recognition that human rights policy can attract foreign investment and development aid.</p>
<p>There is a strong tendency to link human rights with economic security which raises questions about the implementation of human rights law in practice.<xref rid="fn64" ref-type="fn"><sup>64</sup></xref> The primary concern of many ASEAN leaders has been maintaining political stability, with sovereignty and non-intervention as the basis of cooperation on regional security, trade and economic development.<xref rid="fn65" ref-type="fn"><sup>65</sup></xref> It remains to be seen whether human rights policy will be implemented in national law in a manner that permits domestic populations access to justice and full participation in development decision making. Obstacles to legal integration and the lack of a common human rights understanding in the region further inhibits regional progress as is evidenced by the development of the ASEAN human rights mechanisms.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="B10.1163_22131035_00102003_003" sec-type="head1"><label>3.</label><title>The ASEAN Way to create a Regional Human Rights System</title>
<p>The decade subsequent to the 1993 <italic>Bangkok Declaration</italic> reaffirming the principles of the ASEAN Way yielded little progress on human rights. In November 2007, however, the ASEAN leaders adopted the Charter of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN Charter),<xref rid="fn66" ref-type="fn"><sup>66</sup></xref> which provides a legal and institutional foundation for an ASEAN Community.<xref rid="fn67" ref-type="fn"><sup>67</sup></xref> It states ASEAN’s goals are ‘[to] strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law… and to promote and protect human rights and freedoms,’<xref rid="fn68" ref-type="fn"><sup>68</sup></xref> and ‘[t]o enhance the well-being and livelihood of the peoples of ASEAN by providing them with equitable access to opportunities for human development, social welfare, and justice.’<xref rid="fn69" ref-type="fn"><sup>69</sup></xref> Article 14 of the Charter reaffirmed a commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body.<xref rid="fn70" ref-type="fn"><sup>70</sup></xref></p>
<p>The ASEAN Charter was expected to modify the ASEAN way of non-interference. After two years of drafting, the final Charter did little to increase ASEAN’s institutional capacity.<xref rid="fn71" ref-type="fn"><sup>71</sup></xref> While the ASEAN Charter did provide for the creation of a regional human rights body, it did not constitute its legal function or structure, which were to be determined at a later date, in line with the ASEAN Way.<xref rid="fn72" ref-type="fn"><sup>72</sup></xref> Levitar argues that ASEAN’s failure to produce a more robust Charter is a direct consequence of the ASEAN Way. The ASEAN Way as a core norm of the organization enables member states to resist change and renders ASEAN a weak force for regional integration.<xref rid="fn73" ref-type="fn"><sup>73</sup></xref> The ASEAN Charter prominently protects the ASEAN Way in its Article 2 referring to the Principles of the organization. Commitments to sovereignty, non-interference and consultative consensus are found in articles 2 (a), (e) and (f) before the principle to respect human rights.<xref rid="fn74" ref-type="fn"><sup>74</sup></xref> The Charter makes clear that the one unifying characteristic of ASEAN nations is non intervention in the internal affairs of member states, and it continues to emphasize the ASEAN Way.<xref rid="fn75" ref-type="fn"><sup>75</sup></xref></p>
<p>Initially, the drafting hinted at the possibility of inclusion of disciplinary measures against members who failed to abide by the Charter in the area of human rights. Nonetheless the AICHR was not granted investigating power. Not surprisingly, Myanmar objected to the concept of a human rights body which could interfere in its internal affairs.<xref rid="fn76" ref-type="fn"><sup>76</sup></xref> The foreign ministers agreed that no punitive measures such as suspension or sanctions would be included. Human rights policy will be tempered by national interests and regional politics.</p>
<p>The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) was created on 23 October 2009 at the ASEAN Summit in Cha-am, Thailand.<xref rid="fn77" ref-type="fn"><sup>77</sup></xref> The AICHR is a ten-member body, with one representative appointed by each ASEAN member state.<xref rid="fn78" ref-type="fn"><sup>78</sup></xref> They serve three year renewable terms. The AICHR reports to the ASEAN Foreign Ministers and is assisted by the ASEAN Secretary-General and Secretariat. The role of Chairperson rotates among countries chairing the ASEAN.<xref rid="fn79" ref-type="fn"><sup>79</sup></xref> The Commission is composed of officials chosen by and accountable to member states. Eight of the ten original representatives were ‘His Excellency’.<xref rid="fn80" ref-type="fn"><sup>80</sup></xref> Only the representatives from Indonesia and Thailand had human rights advocacy experience. Djamin notes that diversity will create conflicts of interest between their role as activists and government representatives.<xref rid="fn81" ref-type="fn"><sup>81</sup></xref></p>
<p>The AICHR Terms of Reference state that its purposes are ‘[t]o promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of the peoples of ASEAN,’<xref rid="fn82" ref-type="fn"><sup>82</sup></xref> and ‘[t]o uphold the right of the peoples of ASEAN to live in peace, dignity and prosperity’.<xref rid="fn83" ref-type="fn"><sup>83</sup></xref> The AICHR will ‘promote human rights,’ and ‘uphold international human rights standards as prescribed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and international human rights instruments’.<xref rid="fn84" ref-type="fn"><sup>84</sup></xref></p>
<p>The AICHR is mandated to do the following: coordinate the region’s human rights cooperation;<xref rid="fn85" ref-type="fn"><sup>85</sup></xref> promote ASEAN human rights instruments;<xref rid="fn86" ref-type="fn"><sup>86</sup></xref>promote public awareness and education programmes, conduct research and the disseminate information;<xref rid="fn87" ref-type="fn"><sup>87</sup></xref> provide advice and capacity building in order to ratify and implement international human rights instruments and treaties;<xref rid="fn88" ref-type="fn"><sup>88</sup></xref> and to help develop ASEAN positions on human rights.<xref rid="fn89" ref-type="fn"><sup>89</sup></xref> The AICHR can also obtain information from member states on a voluntary basis, engage with stakeholders and other institutions, conduct thematic studies and prepare reports for ASEAN ministerial meetings.<xref rid="fn90" ref-type="fn"><sup>90</sup></xref> The AICHR Terms of Reference do not provide complaints, monitoring or reporting mechanisms despite its planned position as ‘the overarching institution responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights in ASEAN’.<xref rid="fn91" ref-type="fn"><sup>91</sup></xref></p>
<p>In November 2004, ASEAN adopted the Vientiane Action Plan (VAP)<xref rid="fn92" ref-type="fn"><sup>92</sup></xref> that included provisions committing ASEAN to the establishment of a Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC),<xref rid="fn93" ref-type="fn"><sup>93</sup></xref> inaugurated by the Commission on 7 April 2010.<xref rid="fn94" ref-type="fn"><sup>94</sup></xref> The ACWC is mandated to promote and protect women and children’s rights within the ‘different historical, political, socio-cultural, religious and economic context in the region and the balances between rights and responsibilities’<xref rid="fn95" ref-type="fn"><sup>95</sup></xref> by encouraging compliance with international and regional human rights norms<xref rid="fn96" ref-type="fn"><sup>96</sup></xref> through ‘innovative strategies’<xref rid="fn97" ref-type="fn"><sup>97</sup></xref> and raising public awareness.<xref rid="fn98" ref-type="fn"><sup>98</sup></xref> The ACWC can also encourage periodic review of national legislation, regulation, policy, and practices related to the rights of women and children<xref rid="fn99" ref-type="fn"><sup>99</sup></xref> and propose measures their rights.<xref rid="fn100" ref-type="fn"><sup>100</sup></xref></p>
<p>The ACWC, proclaimed to constitute a turning point for the region, is an intergovernmental consultative body and part of the ASEAN organisational structure, likely to compliment the AICHR.<xref rid="fn101" ref-type="fn"><sup>101</sup></xref> The ACWC shall also ‘complement, rather than duplicate, the function of international human rights committees,’<xref rid="fn102" ref-type="fn"><sup>102</sup></xref> using a ‘non-confrontational and cooperative approach.’<xref rid="fn103" ref-type="fn"><sup>103</sup></xref> At the first meeting between the two commissions, the ACWC acknowledged the mandate of the AICHR as ‘the overreaching body on human rights in ASEAN’<xref rid="fn104" ref-type="fn"><sup>104</sup></xref> that operates within the political security pillar of cooperation<xref rid="fn105" ref-type="fn"><sup>105</sup></xref> while the ACWC’s activities come under the socio-cultural pillar of cooperation. It reports to the ASEAN Ministers Meeting on Social Welfare and Development, the ASEAN Committee on Women and other bodies.<xref rid="fn106" ref-type="fn"><sup>106</sup></xref> ASEAN governments have shown more comfort in dealing with the rights of women and children,<xref rid="fn107" ref-type="fn"><sup>107</sup></xref> as they are seen as less sensitive politically and therefore not serious interference.</p>
<p>One of the first tasks of the AICHR is to draft the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD).<xref rid="fn108" ref-type="fn"><sup>108</sup></xref> For this purpose the Commission formed a Drafting Group in July 2011.<xref rid="fn109" ref-type="fn"><sup>109</sup></xref> The Drafting Group’s mandate was to ‘develop an ASEAN Human Rights Declaration with a view to establishing a framework for human rights cooperation through various ASEAN conventions and other instruments dealing with human rights.’<xref rid="fn110" ref-type="fn"><sup>110</sup></xref> The first phase was meant to incorporate human rights standards from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other relevant human rights instruments.<xref rid="fn111" ref-type="fn"><sup>111</sup></xref> The AHRD is not expected to embody any new rights for the ASEAN Member States’ populations, since it will reference only those norms these states have already ratified, and it will not create an individual complaints mechanism.</p>
<p>The Drafting Group was expected to deliver the first draft by December 2011; its mandate was extended once<xref rid="fn112" ref-type="fn"><sup>112</sup></xref> and it finally submitted a preliminary draft to the AICHR in January 2012.<xref rid="fn113" ref-type="fn"><sup>113</sup></xref> On the occasion, the AICHR convened its first meeting on the AHRD in Siem Reap, Cambodia. The meeting was also the first under the Cambodian chairmanship of Om Yin Tieng. The chairman stated that ‘this is a big job and needs lot of discussion’,<xref rid="fn114" ref-type="fn"><sup>114</sup></xref> but reaffirmed the AICHR’s ‘commitment and determination’ to adopt the final version of the Declaration by the end of 2012.<xref rid="fn115" ref-type="fn"><sup>115</sup></xref></p>
<p>ASEAN has never compromised the sovereignty of its member states. The <italic>Bangkok Declaration</italic>, following on from the <italic>Treaty of Amity and Cooperation</italic>, maintains that ASEAN should avoid any form of external intervention in members’ domestic affairs, seen as non-negotiable.<xref rid="fn116" ref-type="fn"><sup>116</sup></xref> ASEAN states are not politically willing to submit to an independent human rights supervisory body.<xref rid="fn117" ref-type="fn"><sup>117</sup></xref> The AICHR’s members are generally not independent from their governments. The choice of the word ‘intergovernmental’ is evidence of the central role of the state in the AICHR. Moreover, the AICHR’s activities will likely reflect the interests of that state holding the chairpersonship. The AICHR will be active when chaired by Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, and less so in the years when other members chair.<xref rid="fn118" ref-type="fn"><sup>118</sup></xref> Myanmar’s turn will garner much attention from media and NGOs.</p>
<p>Non-intervention is not unusual in itself; it is the one of the governing principles of international law and international relations. Yet in ASEAN, it restricts the promotion of human rights to cooperation and consensus.<xref rid="fn119" ref-type="fn"><sup>119</sup></xref> The ASEAN way, written into the mandate of the new ASEAN human rights bodies, the respect of national sovereignty, non-interference,<xref rid="fn120" ref-type="fn"><sup>120</sup></xref> consensual decision making,<xref rid="fn121" ref-type="fn"><sup>121</sup></xref> and the need for gradual, constructive, non-confrontational cooperation are central to their functions.<xref rid="fn122" ref-type="fn"><sup>122</sup></xref> This renders ASEAN incapable of enforcing many human rights agreements or monitoring their domestic implementation in the short term.<xref rid="fn123" ref-type="fn"><sup>123</sup></xref></p>
<p>Sriprapha Petcharamesree, the Thai representative to the AICHR and former chairperson, explains that non-interference in domestic affairs and unconditional engagement are the primary obstacles to practical discourse at the AICHR.<xref rid="fn124" ref-type="fn"><sup>124</sup></xref> Without the ability to examine or criticize human rights related law and policy, the organization is impotent. Muntarbhom expressed his concern that ASEAN’s preoccupation with a non-confrontational and evolutionary approach based on consensus, could lead to the condoning of egregious human rights violations.<xref rid="fn125" ref-type="fn"><sup>125</sup></xref> Failure to address key human rights issues in the region could undermine the legitimacy of the organization. The hope that members will conform to regional norms in order not to embarrass the collective has failed in practice – the cases of Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar provide strong evidence. These states attract international opprobrium and potentially undermine the very legitimacy of ASEAN itself. But ASEAN seems prepared to condone discussion of issues that threaten economic stability, like in Thailand, but to remain silent on important underlying systematic human rights violations seen to maintain economic stability such as those in Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos.</p>
<p>During the draft of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, Laos has arguably taken the most hard-line stance to shield trade and investment from the scope of the Declaration:
<disp-quote>
<p>Each ASEAN member state has the right to pursue its own economic and social development and freely choose its own political system which suits the historical culture and social realities and national values of each nation, based on the aspirations of its people without external interference or pressure in whatsoever forms […] Human rights should not be used as conditionality for extending official development assistance to, engage in trade with, and making investment in ASEAN-member states.<xref rid="fn126" ref-type="fn"><sup>126</sup></xref></p>
</disp-quote>
Laos also proposed the inclusion of a ‘national security’ and ‘public morality’ triggers.<xref rid="fn127" ref-type="fn"><sup>127</sup></xref> Fearful that ‘the exclusive insistence on rights can result in conflict, division, and endless dispute and can lead to lawlessness and chaos,’<xref rid="fn128" ref-type="fn"><sup>128</sup></xref> Laos’ rewording would enable a member state to claim exemption from the Declaration.<xref rid="fn129" ref-type="fn"><sup>129</sup></xref></p>
<p>ASEAN member state governments will have to choose between a legitimate regional attempt to promote, protect and fulfil human rights law or attempting to legitimize the status quo and promoting economic growth alone. The cautious necessity of the ASEAN way is understandable politically and economically. Remarkable statesmanship has been required in overcoming them. The governments of ASEAN must come to terms with the desires of the people for basic human rights and link them with development, and economic and political stability.<xref rid="fn130" ref-type="fn"><sup>130</sup></xref></p>
<p>The UN driven trend towards universal ratification of the principal human rights treaties has resulted in little tangible regional change on the ground.<xref rid="fn131" ref-type="fn"><sup>131</sup></xref> At a minimum, there needs to be a legal infrastructure and understanding about the implications of treaty participation within the legislature, judiciary, executive, and by the ordinary citizens in member states.<xref rid="fn132" ref-type="fn"><sup>132</sup></xref> Do ASEAN states, including Myanmar, intend to meet their legal commitments? Have they genuinely embraced the value system that underpins the human rights paradigm?<xref rid="fn133" ref-type="fn"><sup>133</sup></xref> It is unclear if the ASEAN human rights bodies will constitute surface initiatives with little achievements of substance, or reflect a genuine movement towards human rights standards in the region with practical and measurable enforcement.</p>
<p>Human rights discourse may have been legitimized at the regional level, but it is important to distinguish between norm-recognition and norm-compliance. ASEAN member states’ human rights treaty compliance records are a case in point. ASEAN contains a number of ‘champions of ratification’ who accede to human rights standards but do not implement them at the national level.<xref rid="fn134" ref-type="fn"><sup>134</sup></xref> It is this gap between ratification and implementation that necessitates independent regional monitoring.</p>
<p>Clearly, a balance must be struck between human rights and the sovereignty of its individual member states. Dealing with human rights at the regional level will require eventual standardization in conformity with international law. The ‘ASEAN Way’ must evolve to foster this integration. The ASEAN Way not only hampers human rights, it fetters free trade and retards cooperation to combat drug and human trafficking, refugee flows and trans-national crime. But this reform will be very difficult as the ASEAN Way is now codified in the <italic>ASEAN Charter</italic> and possibly in a future ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="B10.1163_22131035_00102003_004" sec-type="head1"><label>4.</label><title>The ASEAN Way’s Institutional Impact</title>
<p>This part analyses some of the structural problems arising from the ASEAN Way’s principle of non-intervention: a) the limited mandate of the human rights bodies; b) the lack of civil society participation; and c) the lack of common enforceable human rights standards among member states.</p>
<sec id="B10.1163_22131035_00102003_005" sec-type="head2"><label>4.1</label><title>Limited Mandate: No Protection Mechanisms</title>
<p>Given that the organization has been founded on the ASEAN Way, it was inevitable that a human rights mechanism would not include strict monitoring, let alone enforcement. There seems little chance that powers to investigate or receive complaints will be granted as these would directly interfere with the internal affairs of states. Regional politics make it impossible to persuade governments to cede sovereignty in this way at this point.<xref rid="fn135" ref-type="fn"><sup>135</sup></xref> This is reflected in the limited mandates granted to the regional human rights bodies.</p>
<p>The protective mandate outlined in the AICHR Terms of Reference is limited to an advisory and recommendatory function.<xref rid="fn136" ref-type="fn"><sup>136</sup></xref> The AICHR Commission will not prepare country reports, which considerably limit its power. Proposals for a commission that constituted comprehensive human rights protection and reporting mechanisms<xref rid="fn137" ref-type="fn"><sup>137</sup></xref> had been denied by authoritarian ASEAN member states.<xref rid="fn138" ref-type="fn"><sup>138</sup></xref> While the mandate of the ACWC has not been fully determined,<xref rid="fn139" ref-type="fn"><sup>139</sup></xref> Forum-Asia explains that the Commission’s terms of reference infer the promotion of rights over a protection mandate.<xref rid="fn140" ref-type="fn"><sup>140</sup></xref> Nevertheless, the ACWC is expected to establish, in the next three years, a children’s and women’s rights monitoring system in Southeast Asia that ‘will deal with sensitive issues relating to children and women’.<xref rid="fn141" ref-type="fn"><sup>141</sup></xref></p>
<p>Individual and group complaints mechanisms are the cornerstone of other regional human rights systems in Europe, Africa and the Americas. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights<xref rid="fn142" ref-type="fn"><sup>142</sup></xref> can hear individual complaints.<xref rid="fn143" ref-type="fn"><sup>143</sup></xref> The Inter-American Court of Human Rights<xref rid="fn144" ref-type="fn"><sup>144</sup></xref> can provide advisory opinions and make binding decisions.<xref rid="fn145" ref-type="fn"><sup>145</sup></xref> The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights created the African Commission<xref rid="fn146" ref-type="fn"><sup>146</sup></xref> which provided the regional system with a protective function. Similar to the AICHR, the African Commission has no real enforcement mechanism.<xref rid="fn147" ref-type="fn"><sup>147</sup></xref> But crucially, the Commission could receive and consider interstate, individual and group complaints alleging violations of the Charter and signatory states must submit reports on their implementation of the Charter.<xref rid="fn148" ref-type="fn"><sup>148</sup></xref> The nascent African Human Rights Court<xref rid="fn149" ref-type="fn"><sup>149</sup></xref> should complement the African Commission in the future.<xref rid="fn150" ref-type="fn"><sup>150</sup></xref> Despite modest beginnings, the Inter-American and African Commissions’ authority to conduct on-site visits and prepare country reports,<xref rid="fn151" ref-type="fn"><sup>151</sup></xref> issue press releases, and facilitate friendly settlements of human rights complaints have facilitated important gains.</p>
<p>The inclusion of an individual and group complaints mechanism as well as a state reporting procedure is an option for ASEAN. A quasi-judicial system including a Commission mandated to carry out country visits and Special Rapportuers, like in the Inter-American system,<xref rid="fn152" ref-type="fn"><sup>152</sup></xref> provides an alternative to litigation. So far, the only possibility for discussing ASEAN human rights violations is through thematic discussions. While the process of deciding on themes is unclear, the first two chosen are migration and corporate social responsibility. The results of these studies will be a set of non-binding recommendations that will not oblige further action.<xref rid="fn153" ref-type="fn"><sup>153</sup></xref> The AICHR should make the most of its thematic studies to increase awareness about its work. The first studies could address important and sensitive regional human rights topics, raise awareness and have a political impact. Future thematic reports could deal with more pressing issues directly related to regional human rights violations. Lessons from other regional systems indicate that once a human rights body is formed civil society will press for its gradual expansion. The thematic reports offer unique opportunities to work with CSOs and NHRIs in order to highlight regional human rights problems.</p>
<p>The creation of a regional system is seen as an evolving mechanism and civil society organizations have indicated they will advocate for a greater mandate for the AICHR.<xref rid="fn154" ref-type="fn"><sup>154</sup></xref> This will require what Hsein-Li Tan calls ‘persistent engagement and insistent persuasion’ towards getting an effective Commission, Court and increased ties to human rights treaties,<xref rid="fn155" ref-type="fn"><sup>155</sup></xref> and furthermore involves a ‘steady and persistent effort in engaging and encouraging ASEAN officials to undertake the regional institutionalisation of human rights.’<xref rid="fn156" ref-type="fn"><sup>156</sup></xref> This means a ‘step by step’ approach to advocacy taking into account the slow acceptance of responsibility by ASEAN states.<xref rid="fn157" ref-type="fn"><sup>157</sup></xref> The formation of the AICHR is seen only as a first step and the AICHR will have to use this support to push the limits of its mandate.</p>
<p>Progress has generally been limited for the regional bodies in their first years. They have not been particularly effective in promoting or protecting human rights and have made no comment on long-standing human rights violations in the region.<xref rid="fn158" ref-type="fn"><sup>158</sup></xref> The AICHR is described as a Commission ‘without teeth, but with a tongue,’<xref rid="fn159" ref-type="fn"><sup>159</sup></xref> in a region where human rights remain politically sensitive. As Chalermpalanupap, the director for political and security cooperation at the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta, explains:
<disp-quote>
<p>Like all other ASEAN organs or bodies the commission shall operate through consultation and consensus, with firm respect for sovereign equality of all member states…ASEAN would not have come this far if its member states wanted to bite one another with sharp teeth just to get things done their own way.<xref rid="fn160" ref-type="fn"><sup>160</sup></xref></p>
</disp-quote>
In practice, governments will end up monitoring their own conduct. Singapore’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Raymond Lim, confirmed AICHR’s limited powers, cautioning that its creation required accommodation of the ‘history, the realities and culture of all the ten ASEAN Member States.’<xref rid="fn161" ref-type="fn"><sup>161</sup></xref></p>
<p>Inter-state complaints are unlikely as members tend to be reluctant in addressing human rights violations, keeping out of each other’s domestic affairs unless it is politically advantageous. Djamin remains optimistic that such a policy would be more relaxed with the presence of the AICHR. He claims that the Commission is authorized to obtain information on human rights cases from consenting member states. Critics dismiss this notion as having no legal foundation, noting that trade and security matters within the region are higher priorities.<xref rid="fn162" ref-type="fn"><sup>162</sup></xref></p>
<p>It will be useful to clarify the mandates and cooperative methods of the AICHR and the ACWC in order to reduce overlap while increasing scope and use of resources. Despite the differences between their mandates, both commissions could work together. Djamin mentioned that since AICHR is mandated to provide technical advice on human rights to all ASEAN bodies, it can help ACWC in mainstreaming important women’s and children’s issues under both the political-security and economic pillars of ASEAN. The ACWC, in turn, will aid AICHR in providing specialised technical expertise on women’s and children’s protection issues in the region.<xref rid="fn163" ref-type="fn"><sup>163</sup></xref> The ACWC’s mandate includes monitoring relevant international human rights law treaties<xref rid="fn164" ref-type="fn"><sup>164</sup></xref> which provides a valuable asset to the regional system but very little information is available about its potential role. But the organizations have struggled to work together thus far and only met once.<xref rid="fn165" ref-type="fn"><sup>165</sup></xref></p>
<p>Further advances will be difficult considering that these bodies are severely underfunded. The AICHR has a limited budget, no secretariat, no permanent office and no paid employees.<xref rid="fn166" ref-type="fn"><sup>166</sup></xref> It is currently using seed money for operational funding: USD 20,000 per country.<xref rid="fn167" ref-type="fn"><sup>167</sup></xref> The commission is based at the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta, with ‘only a table or two’ to do its work.<xref rid="fn168" ref-type="fn"><sup>168</sup></xref> It may take some time before the commissioners get their own office with a meeting room, a library, a research centre and staff.<xref rid="fn169" ref-type="fn"><sup>169</sup></xref></p>
</sec>
<sec id="B10.1163_22131035_00102003_006" sec-type="head2"><label>4.2</label><title>Lack of Civil Society Participation</title>
<p>The ASEAN Charter resolves to put people at the centre of the regional community building project.<xref rid="fn170" ref-type="fn"><sup>170</sup></xref> For civil society ‘people-oriented’ represents an historic opportunity for ASEAN to become more transparent in its decision-making, to enable popular participation, and to address human rights issues. The problem is matching ASEAN rhetoric with real action.<xref rid="fn171" ref-type="fn"><sup>171</sup></xref> In reality, ASEAN has been traditionally viewed as antithetical to civil society participation and human rights.<xref rid="fn172" ref-type="fn"><sup>172</sup></xref> The Solidarity for Asian Peoples’ Advocacy describes the ASEAN Charter as, ‘a document that falls short of what is needed to establish a ‘people-centred’ and ‘people-empowered’ ASEAN.’<xref rid="fn173" ref-type="fn"><sup>173</sup></xref> Most civil society participation and ‘any broader accountability of ASEAN governments remains largely window dressing’.<xref rid="fn174" ref-type="fn"><sup>174</sup></xref> The entire process disappointed civil society organizations that had lobbied for it.<xref rid="fn175" ref-type="fn"><sup>175</sup></xref></p>
<p>A lack of participation by CSOs prevailed during the establishment of the ASEAN human rights bodies. Despite CSO consultation by the High Level Panel, the development of the Terms of Reference was secretive. The authoritarian governments of Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam obstinately refused to legitimize the role of CSOs in decision-making.<xref rid="fn176" ref-type="fn"><sup>176</sup></xref> The drafting process of the ACWC Terms of Reference that included CSOs and members of the Working Group in Bangkok was more transparent, but not all states allowed for CSO participation.<xref rid="fn177" ref-type="fn"><sup>177</sup></xref> At the AICHR first meeting in 2010, the Commission rejected meeting requests from CSOs and national human rights institutions citing a lack of agreement on rules of procedure.<xref rid="fn178" ref-type="fn"><sup>178</sup></xref> It also turned down the human rights violations cases submitted by civil society organizations as beyond its mandate. Vietnam, Laos and Myanmar, long-time targets of human rights groups, were believed to be behind the decision.<xref rid="fn179" ref-type="fn"><sup>179</sup></xref></p>
<p>The process was described as ‘deplorable’ in local mainstream media.<xref rid="fn180" ref-type="fn"><sup>180</sup></xref> This was not a good start for the AICHR and the new ‘people centred’ ASEAN. Yap Swee Seng, of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development argues that:
<disp-quote>
<p>As representative of a human rights institution, the refusal to meet with civil society is in itself a contradiction of the spirit and principles of human rights. How can we expect this institution to promote and protect human rights in future? The AICHR must take an inclusive and participatory approach especially at these early stages that would determine how the body will operate.<xref rid="fn181" ref-type="fn"><sup>181</sup></xref></p>
</disp-quote>
The Solidarity for Asian Peoples’ Advocacy Task Force on ASEAN and Human Rights (SAPA TFAHR) submitted a civil society proposal on rules of procedure for the AICHR in dealing with civil society.<xref rid="fn182" ref-type="fn"><sup>182</sup></xref> The AICHR discussed this proposal with the view to adopting rules of procedure at their second meeting in Danang, Vietnam, in June and July of 2010. Tasked with defining a five year work plan, conducting thematic studies and delimiting the terms of procedure for dealing with civil society, the AICHR’s second meeting confirmed the stalemate among its members as no tangible progress was made and the regular obstructing states blocked action on civil society. National interests and a limited understanding of the role of a free and active civil society present daunting obstacles.</p>
<p>Neither the preliminary draft of the AHDR nor the terms of references of the Drafting Group have been shared with the public. Consequently, no interested parties had the opportunity to provide inputs on the declaration.<xref rid="fn183" ref-type="fn"><sup>183</sup></xref> While several national and regional non-governmental organizations have made submissions to AICHR on the Declaration, there has been no official response. A few AICHR representatives have engaged in meaningful dialogue with civil society nationally, but on the regional level consultations have been minimal.<xref rid="fn184" ref-type="fn"><sup>184</sup></xref> Worried by the possibility the declaration may fall below international standards, civil society’s position paper on the declaration submitted by the SAPA TF-AHR said: ‘ASEAN as a regional association should aspire to commit itself to higher standards of human rights and contribute to the advancement of the promotion and protection of human rights globally.’<xref rid="fn185" ref-type="fn"><sup>185</sup></xref> Amnesty International criticized the ASEAN panel charged with drafting the human rights Declaration saying it is working largely in secrecy and not consulting with human rights’ NGOs.<xref rid="fn186" ref-type="fn"><sup>186</sup></xref> Local NGOs called upon ASEAN institutions to make the draft public and accessible to the people of the region.<xref rid="fn187" ref-type="fn"><sup>187</sup></xref> An inclusive drafting process, taking into account input from civil society and any other interested individuals or groups, is crucial for the Declaration.</p>
<p>Complaints concerning the nascent ASEAN human rights system repeatedly condemn it as a ‘paper’ or ‘toothless tiger’.<xref rid="fn188" ref-type="fn"><sup>188</sup></xref> Yetthe African Commission also proved to be an early disappointment to Africa’s civil society.<xref rid="fn189" ref-type="fn"><sup>189</sup></xref> It was referred to as a ‘Toothless Watchdog’ and a ‘tool of governments’ meant more for appearance than safeguarding actual rights<xref rid="fn190" ref-type="fn"><sup>190</sup></xref> Since then, civil society has begun to work with the African Commission.<xref rid="fn191" ref-type="fn"><sup>191</sup></xref> Both the American and the African Commissions allow for NGOs to complain on behalf of the victim.<xref rid="fn192" ref-type="fn"><sup>192</sup></xref> The Inter-American Convention stipulates the right of individual complaints and by ‘any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states’ of the OAS.<xref rid="fn193" ref-type="fn"><sup>193</sup></xref> The African Commission has expanded its mandate to include NGOs input as well.<xref rid="fn194" ref-type="fn"><sup>194</sup></xref> Both Commissions rely extensively on NGOs to fulfil their investigative and prosecutorial functions.<xref rid="fn195" ref-type="fn"><sup>195</sup></xref></p>
<p>Despite obstacles to participation, the AICHR is a progressive step in a region characterized by centralized or authoritarian policy making. The AICHR and ACWC are empowered to undertake a dialogue with civil society and other human rights institutions, providing for broader engagement.<xref rid="fn196" ref-type="fn"><sup>196</sup></xref> NGOs have declared their willingness to take up this role. They consider their interaction with the regional mechanisms as test cases for the legitimacy of a people-centred ASEAN.<xref rid="fn197" ref-type="fn"><sup>197</sup></xref> The AICHR and ACWC should seek a partnership with CSOs and favourable rules of procedure to include civil society. Their current TORs are for five years only and must be renewed providing ample opportunity for regional and national CSOs to lobby for their expansion.</p>
<p>In particular, the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism has played an important role in the process and is a go-between for civil societies and ASEAN.<xref rid="fn198" ref-type="fn"><sup>198</sup></xref> Tan Hsien-Li, a member of the Working Group recognizes, ‘it was largely through the Working Group’s consistent effort and patience that ASEAN officials were gradually put at ease with the idea of regional human rights.’<xref rid="fn199" ref-type="fn"><sup>199</sup></xref> Promoting a less adversarial form for the ASEAN human rights body has allowed for more interaction and influence.<xref rid="fn200" ref-type="fn"><sup>200</sup></xref></p>
<p>Civil Society can play a key role and has catalyst functions at the national and regional levels.<xref rid="fn201" ref-type="fn"><sup>201</sup></xref> Despite concerns over the state-centric structure of the regional mechanism, civil society organizations are cautiously optimistic about the potential of a regional body.<xref rid="fn202" ref-type="fn"><sup>202</sup></xref> The effectiveness of regional systems reflects the involvement of civil society. According to Tsein-Li, civil society has been the driving force behind the creation of the AICHR and that, combined with slow democratization, this has created more amicable conditions for human rights dialogue in the region.<xref rid="fn203" ref-type="fn"><sup>203</sup></xref></p>
<p>The AICHR should complete its aims to take stock of existing human rights mechanisms and build networks of human rights organizations.<xref rid="fn204" ref-type="fn"><sup>204</sup></xref> While many in civil society view these as lukewarm initiatives,<xref rid="fn205" ref-type="fn"><sup>205</sup></xref> they are of great importance in a region where human rights are attempting to become part of governance and culture.<xref rid="fn206" ref-type="fn"><sup>206</sup></xref></p>
</sec>
<sec id="B10.1163_22131035_00102003_007" sec-type="head2"><label>4.3</label><title>Lack of Common Human Rights Standards</title>
<p>Legal integration amongst diverse member states is problematic. ASEAN states stress the need to balance universality and diversity.<xref rid="fn207" ref-type="fn"><sup>207</sup></xref> Tay argues that other regional systems, the European system of human rights for example, evolved in a particular context of a much broader harmonization and integration in politics, economics, security and social policy.<xref rid="fn208" ref-type="fn"><sup>208</sup></xref> ASEAN regional diversity means that legal amalgamation is more difficult.<xref rid="fn209" ref-type="fn"><sup>209</sup></xref> So far no attempt has been made to coordinate national systems beyond promoting national human rights institutions.</p>
<p>There remains no exact definition of human rights law agreed upon by ASEAN states. Juwana explains that ASEAN states interpret human rights obligations stemming from international agreements differently.<xref rid="fn210" ref-type="fn"><sup>210</sup></xref> This variation means that finding consensus on human rights issues will be problematic. ASEAN had never been associated with international law and treaties. Severino explained that, ‘ASEAN has always been regarded as a group of sovereign nations operating on the basis of <italic>ad hoc</italic> understandings and informal procedures rather than within the framework of binding agreements arrived at through formal processes.’<xref rid="fn211" ref-type="fn"><sup>211</sup></xref></p>
<p>The absence of common standards in ASEAN is evident in women and children’s rights. The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)<xref rid="fn212" ref-type="fn"><sup>212</sup></xref> and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) enjoy universal ratification by ASEAN members.<xref rid="fn213" ref-type="fn"><sup>213</sup></xref> This regional ratification seems to indicate a common legal standard and jurisdiction for the ACWC, but consensus remains elusive.<xref rid="fn214" ref-type="fn"><sup>214</sup></xref> Neither treaty is uniformly implemented in national legal systems. ASEAN states such as Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, Thailand, and Malaysia have entered reservations to essential provisions of the CEDAW<xref rid="fn215" ref-type="fn"><sup>215</sup></xref> or general reservations.<xref rid="fn216" ref-type="fn"><sup>216</sup></xref> Only one state—the Philippines—has ratified the CEDAW Option Protocol that allows for individual complaints. Human rights awareness and education on the part of women and children remains low.</p>
<p>Most importantly, a lack of common human rights values has emerged during the draft of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. A leaked draft reveals member states, most notably Laos, seeking to weaken the declaration by proposing wording that would limit its scope and application. By contrast, officials from Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, propose more progressive wording.<xref rid="fn217" ref-type="fn"><sup>217</sup></xref> For instance, commenting on the duties and responsibilities of the member states, Laos said the ‘realization of universal human rights’ must happen in the context of ‘regional and national particularities’ such as political, economic, social, cultural, historical and religious backgrounds.<xref rid="fn218" ref-type="fn"><sup>218</sup></xref> Laos’ position is contrary to the wording drafted by the ASEAN Secretariat that ‘it is the duty of member states, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.’<xref rid="fn219" ref-type="fn"><sup>219</sup></xref> The need to take into account human rights particularity is not unique to ASEAN. The African Charter includes tradition, allowing the Commission take into account African practices, customs and principles<xref rid="fn220" ref-type="fn"><sup>220</sup></xref> providing a regional expression of human rights. This includes peoples’ rights and concomitant duties on individuals, for example, creating pan-African human rights identity.<xref rid="fn221" ref-type="fn"><sup>221</sup></xref> Likewise, the European Convention for Human Rights deals exclusively with individual civil and political rights. Appeals to cultural relativism in these cases have not diminished international legal standards.</p>
<p>Laos has also proposed limiting ‘the right to practice one’s religion or belief’ with the condition that ‘advocacy or dissemination of religions or beliefs shall be in compliance with national law of each ASEAN Member State.’<xref rid="fn222" ref-type="fn"><sup>222</sup></xref> Both Laos and Vietnam entered reservations about the right to freedom of opinion and expression and to freely receive information. Laos added the qualification, ‘Freedom of expression carries with it special duty not to defame the reputation of others and incite hatred, discrimination, war, social division and violence.’<xref rid="fn223" ref-type="fn"><sup>223</sup></xref> Laos’ interjections reflect the opinion of their influential neighbour to the North, China, a state that would be uncomfortable with the prospect of its resource rich trade partner having to deal with community activism justified by regional human rights law. Myanmar did not directly comment on the draft but did support the position of Laos ‘not to mention international binding instruments in this political declaration’ and agreed with Laos which had ‘reservations in regards to the use of the term[s] ‘minority groups’ and ‘indigenous peoples’. Expanding regional human rights coverage to these groups would impact on the ability of Laos and Myanmar to efficiently exploit natural resources without respecting free, prior and informed consent of local populations. This is a reflection that both states are engaged in on-going internal conflicts with minority groups.</p>
<p>The definition of who holds rights and freedoms under the Declaration appears to be contentious, with a number of member states providing different views. The draft stated, ‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, sexual identity, property, birth, disability or other status.’ However, Brunei and Malaysia are opposed to the inclusion of ‘sexual identity’ and Malaysia raised concerns about the definitions of ‘other status’ seeking to ensure they are ‘determined by ASEAN common values in the spirit of unity in diversity’, and not based on other internationally accepted definitions. Vietnam questioned the use of the word ‘freely’ in the citizen’s right to participate freely in government and proposed removing ‘torture, enforced disappearance or other serious human rights violations’ from the list of persecutions preventing a State from extraditing an asylum seeker. The current draft also defines when the death penalty can be used, but some member states oppose its inclusion.<xref rid="fn224" ref-type="fn"><sup>224</sup></xref></p>
<p>It is a priority for ASEAN countries to find consensus on a regional human rights Declaration stating international human rights standards.<xref rid="fn225" ref-type="fn"><sup>225</sup></xref> A Declaration is a first step towards a convention that is vital for ensuring that the AICHR becomes part of the legal governance framework and that human rights are included in the regional rule of law. Creating regional human rights law should be a core principle of the AICHRs future activities.<xref rid="fn226" ref-type="fn"><sup>226</sup></xref> Drafting a regional instrument allowed the African Commission to create a body of law reflecting the region’s unique view of human rights. This might be a valuable lesson to ASEAN states that seek to preserve distinctiveness by incorporating regional characteristics such as community and development rights.</p>
<p>Todung Mulya Lubis argues that only Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia are ready and willing to work with a binding regional charter and that the result will be an inadequate compromise.<xref rid="fn227" ref-type="fn"><sup>227</sup></xref> At the same time, the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights deputy chairman Ridha Saleh expressed concern that it would not be legally binding on member states.<xref rid="fn228" ref-type="fn"><sup>228</sup></xref></p>
<p>The lack of functioning national human rights institutions, laws or enforcement mechanisms in many ASEAN States presents a barrier to regional human rights protection. Not all members have credible human rights institutions,<xref rid="fn229" ref-type="fn"><sup>229</sup></xref> and they have taken varying positions on the most prominent human rights law issues.<xref rid="fn230" ref-type="fn"><sup>230</sup></xref> Several member countries do not accept international human rights law in practice, but want to avail of international relations in which human rights discourse has become more prominent. Given the fact that human rights are not guaranteed at the national level in many of ASEAN’s member states, a regional human rights body will face challenging political obstacles. For a regional monitoring system to be effective, human rights must be understood by citizens and codified in national legal regimes.<xref rid="fn231" ref-type="fn"><sup>231</sup></xref> Only through domestic human rights development can a regional system become effective.</p>
<p>Few ASEAN government officials are aware of or interested in human rights law. Petcharamesree notes that this ‘could be a hindrance if we cannot find any common ground as ASEAN requires consensus,’ adding that commitment to human rights values is the key.<xref rid="fn232" ref-type="fn"><sup>232</sup></xref> Many members did not understand that human rights law protects people, not states, and that human rights are not purely domestic affairs.<xref rid="fn233" ref-type="fn"><sup>233</sup></xref></p>
<p>Human rights education will be at the forefront of both civil society and the AICHR’s work. Human rights awareness needs to be raised from within the culture of South East Asian people, which is a long term process. The development of a regional system can reflect the consciousness of its people. Despite the weakness of this regional mechanism, Tan explains that the process of increasing and improving human rights is as important as the goal of a functioning system.<xref rid="fn234" ref-type="fn"><sup>234</sup></xref></p>
<p>Part of the mandate of the AICHR is to facilitate the ratification of international treaties on human rights and this should be a priority. While some ASEAN states have signed the core treaties, implementation remains poor. The regional bodies will have to monitor implementation, provide guidance on best practice and draw attention to failures. With such limited mandates, however, the obligation to implement human rights treaties will continue to fall primarily on domestic institutions, including governments, domestic courts, and national human rights institutions, with obvious consequences<xref rid="fn235" ref-type="fn"><sup>235</sup></xref> The AICHR needs to work with CSOs and NHRIs towards their implementation in domestic law. In turn, the AICHR should ensure that NHRIs operate in accordance with international standards such as the Paris Principles.<xref rid="fn236" ref-type="fn"><sup>236</sup></xref> This partnership should push for the creation of national human rights commissions and ensure that the new human rights bodies are meaningful institutions and do not legitimize the status quo in ASEAN.<xref rid="fn237" ref-type="fn"><sup>237</sup></xref> The ultimate goal will be removing human rights from the list of subjects states can negotiate, rendering them inalienable from regional cooperative practice.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="head1" id="B10.1163_22131035_00102003_008"><label>5.</label><title>Conclusion</title>
<p>ASEAN lacks a common position on human rights and several member states are persistent violators. Relations between ASEAN members are often characterized by mistrust, with historical animosities and competition over resources creating distrust and narrowing the scope of cooperation.<xref rid="fn238" ref-type="fn"><sup>238</sup></xref> In order to achieve any level of regional cooperation, the ASEAN Way has been necessary. As a result, a weak regional human rights mechanism has been set up unable to directly address violations either through reporting or complaints mechanisms. They are largely politicized and have insufficient civil society participation. Yet, they are a first in the region. Amnesty International points out that this is either a milestone in the development of a human rights mechanism or a step backwards, allowing disingenuous human rights commitments to justify denying their people’s basic human rights.<xref rid="fn239" ref-type="fn"><sup>239</sup></xref></p>
<p>While internally ASEAN states historically hold fast to sovereignty and non-intervention, burgeoning civil society groups demand democratization and human rights law. There is increasing tension between civil society, the general population and the government in a number of ASEAN states. Political instability can be the result when populations, empowered economically, feel that their human rights are systematically stifled by unjust governance. It is vital for human rights that stability in ASEAN includes popular participation in a ‘people centred’ governance system.</p>
<p>Externally, ASEAN states are increasingly obliged to cooperate with human rights organizations as part of international relations. But by engaging with international human rights mechanisms, and forming a regional system, states erode their autonomy over domestic policy as far as it may conflict with human rights law. Insistence on non-intervention therefore becomes problematic. Many states would prefer to garner the international reputation, and attract more investment, that accompanies human rights rhetoric without sacrificing immunity from external scrutiny.</p>
<p>The creation of a regional human rights mechanism is an important advancement for human rights in South East Asia. It draws attention to and provides a focal point for civil society on regional human rights issues. Legitimizing regional human rights discourse can have a positive impact. It is hoped that ASEAN’s non-binding, consensus-based procedures and decision making rules that encourage engagement on economic and political issues will further human rights and encourage the adoption of human rights standards.<xref rid="fn240" ref-type="fn"><sup>240</sup></xref> It is a remarkable achievement that ASEAN states, none of which have model human rights records, will now delegate representatives to regularly meet and discuss human rights policy, previously prohibited in most inter-governmental forums. The lack of publically available documents and outputs other than press releases is, however, discouraging.</p>
<p>Once human rights law gets a foot in the door, it is very difficult to close that door again. A cursory glance at the development of regional and international human rights protection mechanisms indicates that they increasingly encroach on domestic sovereignty by empowering individuals and groups within societies. The development of human rights protection mechanisms at the regional and national levels can ‘take on a life of their own.’<xref rid="fn241" ref-type="fn"><sup>241</sup></xref> Yet ASEAN is set to increase cooperation with neighbouring superpower China, a state that does not place a high priority on the human rights record of its trading partners. Based on this increasing cooperation with China, the ASEAN way of non-interference seems bound to continue and likely to be strengthened.<xref rid="fn242" ref-type="fn"><sup>242</sup></xref> Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar are increasingly seen as speaking for China on various areas of ASEAN policy as they are dependent on Chinese investment.<xref rid="fn243" ref-type="fn"><sup>243</sup></xref> It is apparent that human rights will remain outside of vital trade and investment negotiations and will be downplayed in future regional political and economic discussion.</p>
<p>The improved dialogue on human rights in South East Asia is clear, but so are the challenges that face regional application of human rights norms. South East Asia suffers from widespread human rights violations. External human rights scrutiny is required but it can rapidly erode diplomatic relations in ASEAN, where criticism is taken personally by leaders<xref rid="fn244" ref-type="fn"><sup>244</sup></xref> and stokes historical animosities between populations. While the ASEAN mechanism is an important first step, it ‘falls short of both international guidelines for regional human rights mechanisms as well as best practice in other regions.’<xref rid="fn245" ref-type="fn"><sup>245</sup></xref></p>
<p>Human rights are at an important junction in South East Asia. There is strong civil society pressure building in states that permit it and being suppressed in the others. ASEAN member states are now more open to human rights discourse than ever before. No longer can human rights be excluded from ASEAN regional activities. ASEAN human rights bodies will have to overcome their structural weaknesses, political dependence and separation from civil society to challenge the ASEAN Way of political engagement and promote a human rights culture among diverse states. While their mandates remain substantively more focussed on promotion than protection of human rights, this should not close the door to creative ways of covering human rights protection more actively.<xref rid="fn246" ref-type="fn"><sup>246</sup></xref></p>
<p>As late as 2002 the activist and scholar Upendra Baxi dismissed ASEAN as a regional trade instrument serving as an ‘antibody’ to the ‘epidemic’ of human rights.<xref rid="fn247" ref-type="fn"><sup>247</sup></xref> In doing so, he explained, ‘These regimes regard all human rights as irritating impositions, insofar as these retard global capital’s mission to create conditions and circumstances of ‘development’, only within which human rights may envision their practical and foreseeable future.’<xref rid="fn248" ref-type="fn"><sup>248</sup></xref> The ASEAN Charter, by contrast, contains some powerful language that promises some dramatic policy changes applicable to a number of ASEAN’s more recalcitrant members.<xref rid="fn249" ref-type="fn"><sup>249</sup></xref> Whether ASEAN’s position on human rights has evolved significantly since Baxi’s cutting analysis remains to be seen.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group>
<fn id="fn1">
<p><sup>1)</sup> See K Mahbubani, ‘The Dangers of Decadence – What the Rest Can Teach the West,’ (1993) 72(4) <italic>Foreign Affairs</italic>; K Mahbubani, <italic>Can Asians Think?</italic> (Times Books International, 1998); C Neher and R Marlay, <italic>Democracy and Development in South East Asia. The Winds of Change</italic> (Westview Press, 1995); P Eldridge, <italic>The Politics of Human Rights in Southeast Asia</italic> (Routledge, 2002).This article will not address the somewhat stale debate on Asian values except to n the challenge it presents to the conceptual and legal application of human rights standards in the region. It is important to note, however, that the Asian Values debate has broadened discussion on the actual appplication of human rights law and has perhaps tempered the zeal in which human rights was promoted by advocates. It has fostered greater awareness of cultural dimiensions and increased flexibilty in developing human rights law. See M Freeman, ‘Human Rights and Real Cultures: Towards a Dialogue on Asian Values,’ (1998) 16(1) <italic>Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights</italic> 25.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn2">
<p><sup>2)</sup> Y Gai, ‘Asian Perspectives on Human Rights,’ in James Tang (ed), <italic>Human Rights and International Relations in the Asia Pacific Region</italic> (Pinter, 1995) 55.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn3">
<p><sup>3)</sup> M Thompsob, ‘Pacific Asia after ‘Asian Values’: Authoritarianism, Democracy and ‘Good Governance’, (2004) 25(6) <italic>Third World Quarterly</italic> 1079.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn4">
<p><sup>4)</sup> H Nasu and B Saul (eds), <italic>Human Rights in the Asia Pacific Region: Towards Institution Building</italic> (Routledge, 2011) 3. It has been argued that justification for authoritarian rule now stems from the war on terror. See L Avonious and Damien Kingsbury (eds), <italic>Human Rights in Asia: A Reassessment of the Asian Values Debate</italic> (Macmillan, 2008) 5-6.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn5">
<p><sup>5)</sup> Nasu and Saul, ibid., at 4.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn6">
<p><sup>6)</sup> See P Davidson, ‘The Role of Law in Governing Regionalism in Asia’, in Nicholas Thomas (ed), <italic>Governance and Regionalism in Asia</italic> (Routledge, 2009) 224, at 228; B Loke, ‘The ‘ASEAN Way’: Towards Regional Order and Security Cooperation?’ (2005) 30(8) <italic>Melbourne Journal of Politics</italic>; P Thambipillai, ‘Negotiating Styles’ in KS Shandu et al (eds), <italic>The ASEAN Reader</italic> (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore 2003) 73-74.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn7">
<p><sup>7)</sup> See, A Acharya, <italic>Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problems of Regional Order</italic> (Routledge, 2001) 47-72. Interestingly, the ASEAN anthem is also entitled ‘The ASEAN Way’ and can be viewed at: <<ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=linTTWHu1YQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=linTTWHu1YQ</ext-link>> accessed 29 August 2012.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn8">
<p><sup>8)</sup> See Declaration on Southeast Asia as a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality in 1971; Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, art. 2, 24 February, 1976, 1025 U.N.T.S. 15,063; see also ASEAN, Overview: <<ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.aseansec.org/64.htm">http://www.aseansec.org/64.htm</ext-link>> accessed 29 August 2012 (explaining that the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation represents a commitment among the member states to adhere to certain behavioral norms); Susumu Yamakage, ‘The Construction of an East Asian Order and the Limitations of the ASEAN Model’ (2005) 12(1) <italic>Asia-Pacific Review</italic> 6: ‘The principle of non-intervention in internal affairs is retained as a basic tenant of ASEAN. This is due to the fact that the so-called ‘ASEAN WAY’ - decision by consensus - is an obstacle to change.’</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn9">
<p><sup>9)</sup> L Leviter, ‘The ASEAN Charter: ASEAN Failure or Member Failure?’ (2010) 43 <italic>New York University Journal of International Law and Politics</italic> 162.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn10">
<p><sup>10)</sup> Human rights are not found in the text of the <italic>Bangkok Declaration</italic> of 1967. Yet the sparse two page document addressed objectives related to human rights, such as: a) to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development (Second, 1.); (b) to promote regional peace and stability, the respect for justice and the rule of law and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter (Second, 2.); (c) to promote mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific and administrative fields (Second, 3.); and (d) to collaborate towards raising the living standards of ASEAN peoples. (Second, 5); ASEAN has also issued many official statements, including declarations and action plans, addressing similar human rights related issues. For a complete collection of these statements from 1967 to 2003 see, Carlos Medina et al. (eds), <italic>ASEAN and Human Rights: A Compilation of ASEAN Statements on Human Rights</italic> (Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, 2003).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn11">
<p><sup>11)</sup> See Sinnathamby Rajaratnam, ‘ASEAN: The Way Ahead’ in Sandhu et al <italic>supra</italic> n 6 at xxiii, xxvi. On ASEAN generally see ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN at Thirty (1998): <ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.aseansec.org/general/asean30p.htm">http://www.aseansec.org/general/asean30p.htm</ext-link> accessed 29 August 2012; D McDougall, <italic>The International Politics of the New Asia Pacific</italic> (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997) 199; C Espiritu, <italic>Law and Human Rights in the Development of ASEAN</italic> (Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung, 1986).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn12">
<p><sup>12)</sup> L Thio, ‘Implementing Human Rights in ASEAN Countries: ‘Promises to Keep and Miles to Go Before I Sleep’ (1999) 2 <italic>Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal</italic> 9.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn13">
<p><sup>13)</sup> See, Alan Collis, <italic>Security and Southeast Asia: Domestic, Regional and Global Issues</italic> (Lynne Rienner, Boulder 2003).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn14">
<p><sup>14)</sup> Brunei Darussalam joined on 8 January 1984, Viet Nam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn15">
<p><sup>15)</sup> Simon Sheldon, ‘ASEAN and Multilateralism: The Long, Bumpy Road to Community’ (2008) 30(2) <italic>Contemporary Southeast Asia</italic> 269.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn16">
<p><sup>16)</sup> <italic>ASEAN Declaration</italic> [Bangkok Declaration], Bangkok, 8 August 1967, Second, signed by the Presidium Minister for Political Affairs/ Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Singapore and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn17">
<p><sup>17)</sup> <italic>Ibid</italic>, Preamble (establishing ASEAN). The ASEAN founding documents are available at: <<ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.aseansec.org">http://www.aseansec.org</ext-link>> accessed 29 August 2012.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn18">
<p><sup>18)</sup> <italic>Singapore Declaration</italic>, reprinted in 32 I.L.M. 498 (1992).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn19">
<p><sup>19)</sup> Joint communiqué of the 24th ASEAN ministerial meeting (19-20 July 1991), Kuala Lumpur.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn20">
<p><sup>20)</sup> <italic>Vienna Declaration and Program of Action</italic> (signed June 25, 1993), U.N. GAOR, World Conference on Human Rights, 48th Sess., 22nd plenary meeting, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/24 (1993), reprinted in 32 ILM 1664-87 (1993).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn21">
<p><sup>21)</sup> Text is available at: <<ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.aseansec.org/politics/pramm26.htm">http://www.aseansec.org/politics/pramm26.htm</ext-link>> accessed 29 August 2012.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn22">
<p><sup>22)</sup> Joint communiqué of the 26th ASEAN ministerial meeting (23-24 July 1993), Singapore, at 16-18.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn23">
<p><sup>23)</sup> Final Declaration of the Regional Meeting for Asia on the World Conference on Human Rights, UN Doc. A/CONF.157/ASRM/8A/CONF.157/PC/59 (1993), Bangkok Declaration, section 6.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn24">
<p><sup>24)</sup> In his opening address to the Twenty-Fourth ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in 1991, for example, the Prime Minister of Malaysia said that ‘when the issue of human rights is linked to trade, investment and finance, ASEAN cannot but view it as added conditionality and protectionism by other means.’, Joint Communiqué of the 24th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (July 19-20, 1991), 7: <<ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.aseansec.org/politics/pramm24.htm">http://www.aseansec.org/politics/pramm24.htm</ext-link>> accessed 29 August 2012.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn25">
<p><sup>25)</sup> Thio, supra n. 12, at 9.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn26">
<p><sup>26)</sup> U Baxi, <italic>The Future of Human Rights</italic> (Oxford UP, 2002).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn27">
<p><sup>27)</sup> S Narine, <italic>Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia</italic> (Lynne Rienner, 2002) 15, at 31.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn28">
<p><sup>28)</sup> Ibid. at 33.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn29">
<p><sup>29)</sup> See A Acharya, <italic>Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problems of Regional Order</italic> (Routledge, 2001) 47-72.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn30">
<p><sup>30)</sup> See B Saul, Jaqueline Mowbray and Irene Baghoomians, ‘Resistance to Regional Human Rights Cooperation in the Asia Pacific: Demythologizing Regional Exceptionalism by Learning from the Americas, Europe and Africa’,. Nasu and Saul, supra n. 4, at 117; S Sharpe, ‘An ASEAN Way to Security Cooperation in Southeast Asia?’, (2003) 16 <italic>The Pacific Review</italic> 2, 232-33.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn31">
<p><sup>31)</sup> For a brief introduction to these changes see D Forsythe, <italic>Human Rights in International Relations</italic> (2nd ed., Cambridge UP, 2006) 5-7.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn32">
<p><sup>32)</sup> Leviter, supra n. 9, at 167.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn33">
<p><sup>33)</sup> Davidson, supra n. 6, at 228.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn34">
<p><sup>34)</sup> Leviter, supra n. 9, at 168.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn35">
<p><sup>35)</sup> See supra n. 8.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn36">
<p><sup>36)</sup> Leviter, supra n 9, at 168.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn37">
<p><sup>37)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn38">
<p><sup>38)</sup> V Veera, ‘ASEAN Community: An Idea Ahead of Its Time’ <italic>Brunei Times</italic> (14 April 2010). See also K Jonsson, ‘Unity-in-Diversity? Regional Identity Building in Southeast Asia’ (Lund University Centre for East & South-East Asian Studies, Working Paper No. 29, 2008) 16.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn39">
<p><sup>39)</sup> Acharya, supra n. 29, at 58.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn40">
<p><sup>40)</sup> See for example, ‘Dreaming of a Sultanate’ <italic>The Economist</italic> (5 May 2012).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn41">
<p><sup>41)</sup> ‘Crisis in Thailand: Analysing ASEAN, US, UN and EU Responses’ <italic>Eurasia Review</italic> (23 June 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn42">
<p><sup>42)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn43">
<p><sup>43)</sup> ‘Special Report: Thai Representative in AICHR Calls for Joint Development of Democratic Culture’ <italic>National News Bureau of Thailand</italic> (19 April 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn44">
<p><sup>44)</sup> S Peou, ‘Realism and Constructivism in Southeast Asian Security Studies today: A Review Essay’ (2002) 15 <italic>The Pacific Review</italic> 1, at 131-32.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn45">
<p><sup>45)</sup> ‘Burma Rebels Killed in Clashes with Government Troops’ <italic>The Guardian</italic> (4 May 2012).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn46">
<p><sup>46)</sup> H Tan, <italic>The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights:Institutionalising Human Rights in Southeast Asia</italic> (Cambridge UP, 2011) 146.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn47">
<p><sup>47)</sup> D Nurhayati ‘RI to help make tough choice on chair bid’ <italic>The Jakarta Post</italic> (19 July 2011).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn48">
<p><sup>48)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn49">
<p><sup>49)</sup> B Bhasin, ‘ASEAN Shows ‘The Way’ as Myanmar Opens,’ <italic>Asia Times Online</italic>, available at: <<ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NE18Ae01.html">http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NE18Ae01.html</ext-link>> accessed 29 August 2012.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn50">
<p><sup>50)</sup> E Mendes, ‘Should Donor Nations Give Aid to Foreign Countries with Poor Human Rights Records?’ (2012) 451 <italic>New Internaationalist</italic> 34.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn51">
<p><sup>51)</sup> ‘Banyan: Myanmar’s Repugnant and Undemocratic Constitution Will Haunt the Process of Reform’ <italic>Economist Intelligence Unit</italic> (28 April 2012) 53.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn52">
<p><sup>52)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn53">
<p><sup>53)</sup> Thio, supra n. 12, at 13-25.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn54">
<p><sup>54)</sup> H Smith, ‘Explaining Ratification of Global Human Rights Instruments: The Role of Regional Instability’, Journeys in World Politics Conference, University of Iowa (9–12 March 2006).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn55">
<p><sup>55)</sup> S Linton, ‘ASEAN States, Their Reservations to Human Rights Treaties and the Proposed ASEAN Commission on Women and Children’ (2008) 30(2) <italic>Human Rights Quarterly</italic> 443.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn56">
<p><sup>56)</sup> Transparency International, ‘Corruption Perception Index’ (2011), available at: <<ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/#CountryResults">http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/#CountryResults</ext-link>> accessed 20 May 2012.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn57">
<p><sup>57)</sup> Sheldon, supra n. 15, at 269.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn58">
<p><sup>58)</sup> Cambodia’s Om Yentieng, Philippines’s Rosario Manalo and Laos’s Bounkeut Sangsomsak. See, ‘A Difficult Birth for ASEAN Human Rights’ <italic>Bangkok Post</italic> (25 October 2009).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn59">
<p><sup>59)</sup> For readings related to the ‘economics first’ argument see, Robert Dahl, ‘Democracy and Human Rights under Different Conditions of Development’, in Asbjslorn Eidee and Bernt Hagtvet (eds), <italic>Human Rights in Perspective: A Global Assessment</italic> (Blackwell, 1992) 235; J Donnelly, ‘Human Rights and Development: Complementary or Competing Concerns’, in G Shepherd and V Nanda (eds), <italic>Human Rights and Third World Development</italic> (Greenwood Press, 1985) 27; J O’Manique, ‘Human Rights and Development’, (1992) 14(1) <italic>Human Rights Quarterly</italic> 78.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn60">
<p><sup>60)</sup> Eldridge, supra n. 1, at 38.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn61">
<p><sup>61)</sup> Mahbubani, <italic>Can Asians Think?</italic>, supra n. 1, at 76.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn62">
<p><sup>62)</sup> A Acharya, ‘Human Rights and Regional Order: ASEAN and Human Rights Management in Southeast Asia’ in Tang, supra n. 2, at 170-72.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn63">
<p><sup>63)</sup> D Hitchcock, <italic>Asian Values and the United States: How Much Conflict?</italic> (Centre for Strategic and International Studies, 1995) 10.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn64">
<p><sup>64)</sup> Nasu and saul, supra n. 4, at 5.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn65">
<p><sup>65)</sup> Yet some ASEAN members have undergone remarkable transformations in attitude to sovereignty and non-intervention, for example Indonesia. Simon BUTT, ‘Regional Autonomy and Legal Disorder: Proliferation of Local Laws in Indonesia’ (2010) 32 <italic>Sydney Law Review</italic> 177.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn66">
<p><sup>66)</sup> Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 20 November 2007, Singapore, entered into force (15 December 2008) [hereinafter ASEAN Charter].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn67">
<p><sup>67)</sup> On 13 January 2007, ASEAN approved a blueprint for creating an ASEAN Community by 2015. The Cebu Declaration endorsed the Report of the Eminent Persons Group on the ASEAN Charter, December 2006, Cebu Declaration on the Blueprint of the ASEAN Charter, (13 January 2007), available at: <<ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.aseansec.org/19257.htm">http://www.aseansec.org/19257.htm</ext-link>> accessed 29 August 2012.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn68">
<p><sup>68)</sup> ASEAN Charter, art. 1(7).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn69">
<p><sup>69)</sup> Ibid. art.1(11).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn70">
<p><sup>70)</sup> Ibid. art.14(1).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn71">
<p><sup>71)</sup> ASEAN announced its commitment to establish a Charter in December 2005: <italic>Kuala Lumpur Declaration on the Establishment of the ASEAN Charter</italic>, (December 12, 2005), [hereinafter Kuala Lumpur Declaration].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn72">
<p><sup>72)</sup> S Chesterman, ‘Does ASEAN Exist? The Association of Southeast Asian Nations as an International Legal Person in Life After the Charter’ (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2010) 18, arguing that ASEAN's legal personality means little in light of the organization’s inability to do anything.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn73">
<p><sup>73)</sup> Leviter, supra n. 9, at 165.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn74">
<p><sup>74)</sup> ASEAN Charter, art 2.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn75">
<p><sup>75)</sup> C Petersen, ‘Bridging the Gap?: The Role of Regional and National Human Rights Institutions in the Asia Pacific’ (2011) 13 <italic>Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal</italic> 193.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn76">
<p><sup>76)</sup> ‘Myanmar Opposes Investigative Powers’ <italic>Washington Times</italic> (22 July 2008).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn77">
<p><sup>77)</sup> On 23 October 2009, the Heads of State/Government of ASEAN presided over the Inaugural Ceremony of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), during which they also announced the <italic>Cha-am HuaHin Declaration on the Inauguration of the AICHR</italic> [hereinafter Cha-am Declaration].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn78">
<p><sup>78)</sup> The AICHR is composed of representatives appointed by ASEAN Member States, namely, H.E. Pehin Datu Imam Dato Paduka Seri Ustaz Haji Awang Abdul Hamid Bakal (Brunei), H.E. Om Yentieng (Cambodia), Mr. Rafendi Djamin (Indonesia), H.E. Bounkeut Sangsomsak (Lao PDR), H.E. Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (Malaysia), H.E. Kyaw Tint Swe (Myanmar), H.E. Rosario G. Manalo (the Philippines), H.E. Richard Magnus (Singapore), Dr. Sriprapha Petcharamesree (Thailand), and H.E. Do Ngoc Son (Viet Nam), who shall serve for a term of 3 years, which may be renewable once. New elections are due on October 2012. CVs of the representatives are available at: <<ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.aseansec.org/22769.htm">http://www.aseansec.org/22769.htm</ext-link>> accessed 29 August 2012.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn79">
<p><sup>79)</sup> ASEAN Secretariat, Terms of Reference of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, (July 2009), available at: <<ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.aseansec.org/DOC-TOR-AHRB.pdf">http://www.aseansec.org/DOC-TOR-AHRB.pdf</ext-link>> accessed 29 August 2012 [hereinafter AICHR Terms of Reference], art. 5.9. The first Chairperson was Dr.Sriprapha Petcharamesree, a human rights activist and academic from Thailand. In 2011, the Chairpersonship rotated to Indonesia, and its representative RafendiDjamin has taken over the position. H.E Om Yentieng, Cambodian Senior Minister and President of the Cambodian Human Rights Committee is the Chair of the AICHR for 2012. Based on alphabetical order, Myanmar will chair ASEAN in 2016. But the country has submitted a request to chair ASEAN in 2014, swapping its schedule with Laos.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn80">
<p><sup>80)</sup> H.E. Pehin Datu Imam Dato Paduka Seri Ustaz Haji Awang Abdul Hamid Bakal (Brunei), H.E. Om Yentieng (Cambodia), H.E. Bounkeu Sangsomsak (Lao PDR), H.E. Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (Malaysia), H.E. Kyaw Tint Swe (Myanmar), H.E. Rosario G. Manalo (the Philippines), H.E. Richard Magnus (Singapore), and H.E. Do Ngoc Son (Viet Nam).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn81">
<p><sup>81)</sup> ‘We Will Engage Civil Society Groups’ <italic>The Jakarta Post</italic> (1 November 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn82">
<p><sup>82)</sup> AICHR Terms of Reference, arts. 10-12.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn83">
<p><sup>83)</sup> Ibid. arts. 1.1-1.2.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn84">
<p><sup>84)</sup> Ibid. arts. 1.4-1.6.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn85">
<p><sup>85)</sup> Ibid. arts. 4.2 and 4.6.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn86">
<p><sup>86)</sup> Ibid. art. 4.6.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn87">
<p><sup>87)</sup> Ibid. art. 4.3.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn88">
<p><sup>88)</sup> Ibid. art. 4.4 and 4.5.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn89">
<p><sup>89)</sup> Ibid. art. 4.11.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn90">
<p><sup>90)</sup> ‘AICHR Unveiled, for the Betterment of All ASEAN Peoples’, 15th ASEAN Summit, Cha-am, Thailand, Press Release (23 October 2009).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn91">
<p><sup>91)</sup> AICHR Terms of Reference, art. 8.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn92">
<p><sup>92)</sup> <italic>Vientiane Action Plan</italic> (adopted November 30, 2004), Vientiane, Lao PDR.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn93">
<p><sup>93)</sup> V Muntarbhorn, ‘A Roadmap for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism’, Third Workshop for an ASEAN Regional Mechanism on Human Rights, Bangkok, Thailand (28–29 May 2003), available at: <<ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.fnf.org.ph/liberallibrary/roadmap-for-asean-human-rights.htm">http://www.fnf.org.ph/liberallibrary/roadmap-for-asean-human-rights.htm</ext-link>> accessed 29 August 2012. Its implementation brought about the Terms of Reference for the ‘Working Group that Will Work towards the Establishment of an ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC)’. <italic>Terms of Reference for the Working Group that Will Work Towards the Establishment of an ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children</italic>, adopted 29 April 2009, Manila, Philippines, [hereinafter WG-ACWC Terms of Reference]. The official ACWC Terms of Reference were released in November 2009, <italic>Terms of Reference of the ASEAN Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children</italic> (November 2009) [hereinafter ACWC Terms of Reference].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn94">
<p><sup>94)</sup> H.E. Prime Minister Nguyen TAN DUNG, speech at the Inauguration of the ASEAN Commission on Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC), Ha Noi, Vietnam (7 April 2010), available at: <<ext-link ext-link-type="url" xlink:href="http://www.aseansec.org/24478.htm">http://www.aseansec.org/24478.htm</ext-link>> accessed 29 August 2012. See also: ‘ASEAN gets commission for children and women’ <italic>The Jakarta Post</italic> (8 April 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn95">
<p><sup>95)</sup> ACWC Terms of Reference, art. 2.1.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn96">
<p><sup>96)</sup> Ibid. art. 5.1.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn97">
<p><sup>97)</sup> Ibid. art. 5.2.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn98">
<p><sup>98)</sup> Ibid. arts. 5.3 and 5.5.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn99">
<p><sup>99)</sup> Ibid. art. 5.10.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn100">
<p><sup>100)</sup> Ibid. art. 5.12.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn101">
<p><sup>101)</sup> Ibid. art. 4. Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, as the ASEAN Chair, said that the establishment of the ACWC represents the common will of the ASEAN leaders reflecting the aspirations of women and children and thus translating into reality the objectives set out in the Charter, in the VAP and the Roadmap for ASEAN Community for 2009-2015. See also: Asia Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), ‘ASEAN Commission on Women and Children: Difficult to Have Protection Mandate’ (16 April 2010). RafendiDjamin, Indonesia’s Commissioner for the Human Rights Commission said that the ACWC ‘will serve as a complementary body to the AICHR and will work on sectoral issues under the guidelines and standards of the AICHR’: Child Rights Information Network (CRIN), ‘ASEAN: Cautions Welcome for Women and Children Commission’ (8 April 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn102">
<p><sup>102)</sup> ACWC Terms of Reference, art. 3.4.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn103">
<p><sup>103)</sup> Ibid. art. 3.6.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn104">
<p><sup>104)</sup> ASEAN, ‘Press Release on the Seventh Meeting of the ASEAN Intergovernamental Commission on Human Rights’ (2 December 2011).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn105">
<p><sup>105)</sup> S Petcharamesree, Comments on the New Agenda of ASEAN, First Meeting of the ASEAN University Network, Human Rights Education Network (AUN-HREN) (Bangkok, Thailand 18-19 February 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn106">
<p><sup>106)</sup> A Cook and P Bhalla, ‘Regional Champions. Examining the Comparative Advantages of AICHR and ACWC’ (2010) 1 <italic>NTS Insight</italic>.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn107">
<p><sup>107)</sup> The Office of Human Rights Studies and Social Development (OHRSD), ‘Towards an ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children’, Mahidol University, Thailand, (2008) xix.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn108">
<p><sup>108)</sup> MCOT, ‘Asean discuss human rights in Vientiane’ (29 June 2011).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn109">
<p><sup>109)</sup> During its first meeting in Vientiane, the group discussed the structure, topics and content of the AHRD See: Press Release of the Fifth ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (Jakarta 25-29 April 2011); MCOT, ‘Asean members discuss draft Asean human rights declaration’, (4 July 2011).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn110">
<p><sup>110)</sup> AICHR Terms of Reference, art. 4.2.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn111">
<p><sup>111)</sup> Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, ‘AICHR Forms Drafting Group for Human Rights Declaration’.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn112">
<p><sup>112)</sup> ASEAN, ‘Press Release on the Seventh Meeting of the ASEAN Intergovernamental Commission on Human Rights’(2 December 2011).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn113">
<p><sup>113)</sup> International Justice Resource Centre, ‘Draft ASEAN Human Rights Declaration remains confidential, to be completed in 2012’ (9 January 2012).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn114">
<p><sup>114)</sup> ‘Cambodia vows to finalize ASEAN Human Rights Declaration this year’ <italic>The Jakarta Post</italic> (7 January 2012).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn115">
<p><sup>115)</sup> ASEAN, ‘Press Release of the First Meeting of ASEAN Intergovernamental Commission on Human Rights and on the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration’ (8-9 January 2012). Despite the draft has not been made public, a leaked document has revealed detailed comments by officials from Laos, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Singapore, see: Mizzima, ‘ASEAN waters down human rights draft: leaked document’ (17 February 2012). [Full version of the leaked working draft of the AHRD as of 8 January 2012 is on file with authors].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn116">
<p><sup>116)</sup> In the Bangkok Declaration, the following phrase was included. ‘Southeast Asia share a primary responsibility for strengthening the economic and social stability of the region and ensuring their peaceful and progressive national development, and that they are determined to ensure their stability and security from external interference in any form or manifestation in order to preserve their national identities in accordance with the ideals and aspirations of their peoples’, See, Bangkok Declaration.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn117">
<p><sup>117)</sup> Linton, supra n. 55, at 490.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn118">
<p><sup>118)</sup> Tan, supra n. 46, at 131.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn119">
<p><sup>119)</sup> Bangkok Declaration. See also, Diane Mauzy, ‘The Human Rights and ‘Asian Values’ Debate in South East Asia: Trying to Clarify the Key Issues’ (1997) 10 <italic>The Pacific Review</italic> 210 221.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn120">
<p><sup>120)</sup> AICHR Terms of Reference, art. 2.1.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn121">
<p><sup>121)</sup> Ibid. art. 6.1.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn122">
<p><sup>122)</sup> Ibid. arts. 2.4 and 2.5.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn123">
<p><sup>123)</sup> Mauzy, supra n. 119, at 268.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn124">
<p><sup>124)</sup> Petcharamesree, supra n. 105.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn125">
<p><sup>125)</sup> V Muntarbhorn, ‘Asia, Human Rights and the New Millenium: Time for a Regional Human Rights Charter?’ (1998) 8(2) <italic>Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems</italic> 359, at 405.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn126">
<p><sup>126)</sup> Mizzima, supra n. 115. [Full version of the leaked working draft of the AHRD as of 8 January 2012 is on file with authors].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn127">
<p><sup>127)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn128">
<p><sup>128)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn129">
<p><sup>129)</sup> Ibid. ‘The exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose… to meet the just requirements of national security, public order, public health and public morality and the general welfare of the peoples in a democratic society,’ Laos said.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn130">
<p><sup>130)</sup> See The High Level Panel on Threats Challenges and Change, GA A/59/565.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn131">
<p><sup>131)</sup> See P Alston, <italic>Final Report on Enhancing the Long</italic>-<italic>Term Effectiveness of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty System</italic>, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1997/74 (27 March 1997) arguing that universal ratification of the six core human rights treaties is the best possible foundation for international endeavours to promote respect for human rights.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn132">
<p><sup>132)</sup> Linton, supra n. 55, at 442.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn133">
<p><sup>133)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn134">
<p><sup>134)</sup> ‘Champions of Ratification’ is a phrase often invoked by Dr. Sriprapha Petcharamesree. For example, see, S Petchramesree, First Meeting of the ASEAN University Network, Human Rights Education Network (AUN-HREN) (Bangkok, Thailand 18-19 February 2010) comments on the New Agenda of ASEAN [on file with author].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn135">
<p><sup>135)</sup> See, e.g., S Chiam, ‘Reports From Regional Human Rights Mechanisms: Asia's Experience in the Quest for a Regional Human Rights Mechanism’ (2009) 40 <italic>Victoria University Wellington Law Review</italic> 127; H Hashimoto, <italic>Prospects for a Regional Human Rights Mechanism in East Asia</italic> (Routledge, 2004) 139-43.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn136">
<p><sup>136)</sup> The Office of Human Rights Studies and Social Development, supra n. 107, at xix.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn137">
<p><sup>137)</sup> Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, Proposed Elements for the Terms of Reference of an ASEAN Human Rights Body (2008) 9.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn138">
<p><sup>138)</sup> ‘Thailand to Hold Postp<italic>oned ASEAN Summit in February</italic>’ <italic>The Irrawaddy</italic> (16 December 2008).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn139">
<p><sup>139)</sup> The Jakarta Post, supra n. 94.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn140">
<p><sup>140)</sup> CRIN, supra n. 101.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn141">
<p><sup>141)</sup> The Jakarta Post, supra n. 94.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn142">
<p><sup>142)</sup> <italic>American Convention on Human Rights</italic>, 21 November 1969, O.A.S. Treaty Series No. 36, 1144 UNTS 123, 9 ILM 99 (entered into force 18 July 1978), Article 37 [American Convention].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn143">
<p><sup>143)</sup> Ibid. Article 45. However, the exercise of the power of the Inter-American Commission to accept petitions is not bounded by declarations of the state parties. Article 44 states ‘Any person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party.’ See B Tittemore, ‘Ending Impunity in the Americas: The Role of the Inter-American Human Rights System in Advancing Accountability for Serious Crimes under International Law’ (2006) 12 <italic>Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas</italic> 429, 438; J Pasqualucci, <italic>The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights</italic> (Cambridge University Press, 2003) 322; J Donnelly, <italic>Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice</italic> (Cornell University Press, 1989).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn144">
<p><sup>144)</sup> American Convention, Article 33.Tom Farer (1997) ‘The Rise of the Inter-American Human Rights Regime: No Longer a Unicorn, Not Yet an Ox’ 19(3) <italic>Human Rights Quarterly</italic> 510, 523.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn145">
<p><sup>145)</sup> American Convention, Article 64 states, ‘The member states of the Organization may consult the Court regarding the interpretation of this Convention or of other treaties.’ Another distinctive uniqueness of the Inter-American system is that a state party is, upon ratifying the Convention, recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court without any special agreement (Article 62.1). Article 62.1 states, ‘A State Party may, upon depositing its instrument of ratification or adherence to this Convention, or at any subsequent time, declare that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention.’ See J Cavallaro and S Brewer, ‘Reevaluating Regional Human Rights Litigation in the Twenty First Century: The Case of the Inter-American Court’ (2008) 102 <italic>American Journal of International Law</italic> 768, at 778.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn146">
<p><sup>146)</sup> African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 26 June 1981, O.A.U. Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 Rev. 5, entered into force 21 October 1986) [African Charter]. See generally, M wa Mutua, ‘The African Human Rights Court: A Two Legged Stool?’ (1999) 21(2) <italic>Human Rights Quarterly</italic> 342.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn147">
<p><sup>147)</sup> This is not surprising since virtually no African state, with the exceptions of the Gambia, Senegal, and Botswana had democracy before the African Charter was adopted. See M wa Mutua, ‘The African Human Rights System in a Comparative Perspective’ (1993) 3 <italic>Review of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights</italic> 5; DD Nanjira, ‘The Protection of Human Rights in Africa: The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ in S Janusz (ed), <italic>Human Rights: International Protection, Monitoring, Enforcement</italic> (UNESCO, 2003) 226.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn148">
<p><sup>148)</sup> The ACHPR does not exactly specify individual communications,’ which, in practice, are included in the ‘other communications.’ See R Murray, ‘Decisions by the African Commission on Individual Communications under the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights’ (1997) 46(2) <italic>International and Comparative Law Quarterly</italic> 412–34. Nevertheless, the number of communications brought to the Commission remains low compared to regional violations. See R Murray and M Evans, ‘Non-Compliance of State Parties to Adopted Recommendations of the African Commission: A Legal Approach’ (2001) <italic>Documents of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights</italic> 758.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn149">
<p><sup>149)</sup> Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity, <italic>Draft Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights</italic>, Conference of Ministers/ Attorneys General on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, OAU/LEG/MIN/AFCHPR/PROT.(I)Rev.2 (1997); See G Naldi and K Magliveras, ‘Reinforcing the African System of Human Rights: The Protocol on the Establishment of a Regional Court of Human and Peoples' Rights’ (1998) 16 <italic>Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights</italic> 431; O Umozurike, <italic>The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights</italic> (Martinus Nijhoff, 1997) 92-93.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn150">
<p><sup>150)</sup> The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights is the supervisory organ for the implementation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. See, Mutua, supra n. 146, at 355. However, the ‘mere addition of a court, although a significant development,’ is considered unlikely to address the structural weaknesses of the African human rights system. See, Mutua, supra n. 147, at 345.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn151">
<p><sup>151)</sup> On the importance of country reports and advisory opinions in the Inter-American system see, Francisco Rivera, ‘Lessons learned from the Inter-American System. A comparative approach on the issue of access to regional human rights mechanisms’, Emerging New Human Rights Institutions in the NAM Region International Seminar, NAM Center for Cultural Diversity, Geneva, 16 March 2012 [on file with author].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn152">
<p><sup>152)</sup> The Inter-American Commission has made more than 100 country visits. On the importance of the Commissions’ Special Rapporteurs see, Rivera ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn153">
<p><sup>153)</sup> ‘New ASEAN Rights Focus Face Same Old Impediments’ <italic>Jakarta Globe</italic> (27 June 2010). As of 30 August 2012, both of these studies were incomplete with research being conducted at Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn154">
<p><sup>154)</sup> Tan, supra n. 46, at 139.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn155">
<p><sup>155)</sup> Ibid. at 141-42.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn156">
<p><sup>156)</sup> Ibid. at 8.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn157">
<p><sup>157)</sup> Ibid. at 9.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn158">
<p><sup>158)</sup> Ibid. at 161.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn159">
<p><sup>159)</sup> A Durbach, C Renshaw and A Byrnes, ‘A Tongue but No Teeth?’: The Emergence of a Regional Human Rights Mechanism in the Asia Pacific Region’ (2009) 31 <italic>The Sydney Law Review</italic> 211.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn160">
<p><sup>160)</sup> ‘AICHR: ASEAN’s journey to human rights’ <italic>The Jakarta Post</italic> (1 November 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn161">
<p><sup>161)</sup> Quoted in ‘Human Rights Body ‘Consultative’ <italic>The Straits Times</italic> (28 August 2007).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn162">
<p><sup>162)</sup> ‘RI Seeks to Strengthen ASEAN Human Rights Stance’ <italic>The Jakarta Post</italic> (25 June 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn163">
<p><sup>163)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn164">
<p><sup>164)</sup> ACWC Terms of Reference, arts. 2(5), 3(2), 3(4) and 5(11).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn165">
<p><sup>165)</sup> ASEAN, ‘Press Release on the Seventh Meeting of the ASEAN Intergovernamental Commission on Human Rights’ (2 December 2011). Also see, Tan, supra n. 46, at 162.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn166">
<p><sup>166)</sup> Petcharamesree, supra n. 105.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn167">
<p><sup>167)</sup> ‘We Will Engage Civil Society Groups’ <italic>The Jakarta Post</italic> (1 November 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn168">
<p><sup>168)</sup> ‘AICHR: ASEAN’s journey to human rights’ <italic>The Jakarta Post</italic> (1 November 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn169">
<p><sup>169)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn170">
<p><sup>170)</sup> ASEAN Charter, Preamble and art. 1.13. Article 1.13 reads: ‘To promote a people-oriented ASEAN in which all sectors of society are encouraged to participate in, and benefit from, the process of ASEAN integration and community building’.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn171">
<p><sup>171)</sup> Civil society charges that ASEAN is ‘more into rhetoric than real action’. Sinapan Samydorai quoted in Wayne Arnold, ‘Historic ASEAN Charter Reveals Divisions’ (2007) <italic>International Herald Tribune</italic>. See also, Medina, supra n. 10.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn172">
<p><sup>172)</sup> A Collins, ‘A People Centered ASEAN: A Door Ajar or Closed for Civil Society Organizations?’ (2008) 30(2) <italic>Contemporary Southeast Asia</italic> 314.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn173">
<p><sup>173)</sup> Ibid. Also see, Solidarity for Asian Peoples’ Advocacies (SAPA) Working Group on ASEAN, ‘Analysis of the ASEAN Charter’ (20 October 2007).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn174">
<p><sup>174)</sup> KH Jong, ‘ASEAN Way and its implications and challenges for regional integration in Southeast Asia’ (2007) <italic>Jurnal Jabatan Pengajian Asia Tenggara</italic> 26.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn175">
<p><sup>175)</sup> P Patel, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Statement delivered at the 16th Regional Session of the UN Human Rights Council (22 March 2011) (criticizing the lack of protection measures in the terms of reference of the recently established AICHR).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn176">
<p><sup>176)</sup> For a discussion on the ACWC and Laos, see I Pietropaoli, ‘Challenges for ASEAN Human Rights Mechanisms: The Case of Lao PDR from a Gender Perspective’ in Nasu and Saul, supra n. 4.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn177">
<p><sup>177)</sup> Ibid. Dialogue with Civil Society Organisations in the Drafting of the Terms of Reference for the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children, Bangkok (18-19 August 2009). For example, CSOs from Lao PDR did not participate in the meeting.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn178">
<p><sup>178)</sup> Press Statement by the Chair of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights on the First Meeting of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, ASEAN Secretariat (1 April 2010). During the meeting the Representatives discussed its rules of procedure and effective operations as the overarching human rights institution in ASEAN.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn179">
<p><sup>179)</sup> ‘New ASEAN Rights Focus Face Same Old Impediments’ <italic>Jakarta Globe</italic> (27 June 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn180">
<p><sup>180)</sup> ‘Is ASEAN Biting off More than It Can Chew?’ <italic>The Nation</italic> (Thailand 5 April 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn181">
<p><sup>181)</sup> Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network, ‘Civil Society Condemns AICHR for Refusing to Meet, Calls for Draft Rules of Procedure to be Made Public and Hold Wider Consultation’ (29 March 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn182">
<p><sup>182)</sup> FORUM-ASIA, ‘AICHR to hold its second meeting in Danang, Vietnam, 28 June - 2 July’ (15 June 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn183">
<p><sup>183)</sup> International Justice Resource Centre, ‘Draft ASEAN Human Rights Declaration Remains Confidential. To Be Completed in 2012’ (9 January 2012).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn184">
<p><sup>184)</sup> Amnesty International, ‘ASEAN: Make Draft Human Rights Declaration Public’, (5 January 2012) AI Index: IOR 64/001/2012.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn185">
<p><sup>185)</sup> Mizzima, supra n. 115. [Full version of the leaked working draft of the AHRD as of 8 January 2012 is on file with authors, para. 5].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn186">
<p><sup>186)</sup> Amnesty International, supra n. 184.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn187">
<p><sup>187)</sup> Ibid. See also, International Justice Resource Centre, supra n. 183. The Cambodian Center for Human Rights, among others, also called upon the AICHR to ensure meaningful consultation with all stakeholders during the drafting process by making the draft AHRD available to the public as soon as possible.’ The organization further stated: ‘The drafting process of the AHRD to date has been marred by a lack of transparency and consultation with either the public or civil society.’</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn188">
<p><sup>188)</sup> Durbach et al., supra n. 159, at 211.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn189">
<p><sup>189)</sup> C Nwankwo, ‘The OAU and Human Rights’ (1993) 4(3) <italic>Journal of Democracy</italic> 50, at 53.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn190">
<p><sup>190)</sup> See Don Nanjira, supra n. 147, Chapter 6.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn191">
<p><sup>191)</sup> Report of Government Experts Meeting, AHG/Res 230 (xxx), 30th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government, Tunis, Tunisia, June 1994. See also IA Badawi El-Sheikh, ‘Draft Protocol of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Introductory N’ (1997) 9 <italic>African Journal of International and Comparative Law</italic> 943, at 944.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn192">
<p><sup>192)</sup> Pasqualucci, supra n. 143, at 315-16.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn193">
<p><sup>193)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn194">
<p><sup>194)</sup> See for example <italic>The Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic, and Social Rights</italic> v <italic>Nigeria</italic>, Communication 155/96.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn195">
<p><sup>195)</sup> Pasqualucci, supra n. 143, at 317-18.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn196">
<p><sup>196)</sup> Cambodia’s Om Yentieng, Philippines’s Rosario Manalo and Laos’s Bounkeut Sangsomsak. See: ‘A Difficult Birth for ASEAN Human Rights’ <italic>Bangkok Post</italic> (25 October 2009); Muntarbhorn, supra n. 93.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn197">
<p><sup>197)</sup> Results of the Workshop with Civil Society Organizations on Indigenous Peoples and ASEAN (9-10 July 2010), Bangkok, Thailand [on file with author].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn198">
<p><sup>198)</sup> On the Role of the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism as an example of civil society interaction see: Hsien-Li Tan, ‘Persistent Engagement and Insistent Persuasion: The Role of the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism in Institutionalizing Human Rights in the Region,’in Nasu and Saul, supra n. 4, at 130-31.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn199">
<p><sup>199)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn200">
<p><sup>200)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn201">
<p><sup>201)</sup> See R Walker, <italic>One World, Many Worlds: Struggle for a Just World Peace</italic> (Lynne Rienner, 1988); J Rosenau, <italic>The Study of Global Interdependence: Essays on the Transnationalization of World Affairs</italic> (Frances Pinter, 1980).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn202">
<p><sup>202)</sup> Tan, supra n. 198, at 130-31.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn203">
<p><sup>203)</sup> Tan, supra n. 46, at 8.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn204">
<p><sup>204)</sup> Petcharamesree, supra n. 105.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn205">
<p><sup>205)</sup> Y Ginbar, ‘Human Rights in ASEAN. Setting Sail or Treading Water?’ (2010) 10(3) <italic>Human Rights Law Review</italic> 504.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn206">
<p><sup>206)</sup> Tan, supra n. 46, at 157-58.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn207">
<p><sup>207)</sup> WK Seng, ‘The Real World of Human Rights’ (1993) <italic>Singapore Journal of Legal Studies</italic> 605, 605-608. For more on the ‘Asian Values’ and ‘Cultural Relativism’ debates and how they have affected ASEAN human rights policy see Thio, supra n. 12, at 13-25; A Sen, ‘Critical Perspectives on the Asian Values Debate’ in Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell (eds), <italic>The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights</italic> (Cambridge UP, Press 1999).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn208">
<p><sup>208)</sup> S Tay, ‘Comparing Apples with Mangoes and Durian: Human Rights Systems in Europe and Southeast Asia’ (Singapore Institute for International Affairs, 2002).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn209">
<p><sup>209)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn210">
<p><sup>210)</sup> ‘Special Report: Thai Representative in AICHR Calls for Joint Development of Democratic Culture’ <italic>National News Bureau of Thailand</italic> (19 April 2010).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn211">
<p><sup>211)</sup> R Severino, ‘The ASEAN Way and the Rule of Law’, International Law Conference on ASEAN Legal Systems and Regional Integration, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, address, 3 September 2001.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn212">
<p><sup>212)</sup> Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, GA Res. 34/180, UN Doc. A/34/46 (entered into force 3 September 1981) [CEDAW].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn213">
<p><sup>213)</sup> Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, G.A. Res. 44/25, U.N. Doc.A/44/49, entered into force2 September 1990) [CRC].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn214">
<p><sup>214)</sup> Linton, supra n. 55, at 440.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn215">
<p><sup>215)</sup> Article 2 (Policy Measures) Singapore; Article 5(a) (Role Stereotyping and Prejudice) Malaysia; Article 7(b) (Political and Public Life) Malaysia; Article 9(2) (Nationality) Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore; Article 11 (Employment) Malaysia, Singapore; Article 16 (Marriage and Family Life) Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn216">
<p><sup>216)</sup> Brunei Darussalam: Constitution, Islam; Malaysia: Shariah, Constitution; Singapore: Private/religious/personal laws, socio-political conditions, national legislation; Thailand: Constitution, national laws.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn217">
<p><sup>217)</sup> Laos is the most vigorous advocate for cementing state rights above claims to universal human rights and freedoms, with Malaysia and Vietnam making supporting comments. See Mizzima, supra n. 115.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn218">
<p><sup>218)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn219">
<p><sup>219)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn220">
<p><sup>220)</sup> African Charter, art 61.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn221">
<p><sup>221)</sup> Saul et al., supra n. 30, at 113.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn222">
<p><sup>222)</sup> Mizzima, supra n 115. [Full version of the leaked working draft of the AHRD as of 8 January 2012 is on file with authors, para. 4].</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn223">
<p><sup>223)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn224">
<p><sup>224)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn225">
<p><sup>225)</sup> Medina, supra n. 10.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn226">
<p><sup>226)</sup> Tan, supra n. 46, at 248.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn227">
<p><sup>227)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn228">
<p><sup>228)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn229">
<p><sup>229)</sup> The Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn230">
<p><sup>230)</sup> ‘ASEAN Workshop Highlights Need for Greater Civil Society Involvement’, FORUM-ASIA (26 July 2007).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn231">
<p><sup>231)</sup> J Donnelly, ‘The Social Construction of International Human Rights,’ in Tim Dunne and Nicholas Wheeler (eds), <italic>Human Rights in Global Politics</italic> (Cambridge UP, 1999) 71-102.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn232">
<p><sup>232)</sup> Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, ‘Dr. Petcharamesree: On being a member of the AICHR’ (2010) <italic>Human Rights Herald</italic> 2.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn233">
<p><sup>233)</sup> Petcharamesree, supra n. 105.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn234">
<p><sup>234)</sup> Tan, supra n. 46, at 9.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn235">
<p><sup>235)</sup> Petersen, supra n. 75, at 175.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn236">
<p><sup>236)</sup> Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles), adopted by General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn237">
<p><sup>237)</sup> R Katanyuu, ‘Beyond Non-Interference in ASEAN: The Association’s Role in Myanmar’s National Reconciliation and Democratization’ (2006) 46 <italic>Asian Survey</italic> 6, 840.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn238">
<p><sup>238)</sup> Saul et al., supra n. 30, at 124.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn239">
<p><sup>239)</sup> Amnesty International, supra n. 184.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn240">
<p><sup>240)</sup> See J Arendshorst, ‘The Dilemma of Non-Interference: Myanmar, Human Rights, and the ASEAN Charter’, (2009) 8 <italic>North-western University Journal of International Human Rights</italic> 111. For a discussion of regime creation in the Asia-Pacific see J Rolfe, ‘A Complex of Structures: Functional Diversity, Regional Consolidation and Community in the Asia-Pacific’ (2007) 33(4) <italic>Asian Affairs: An American Review</italic> 217–34. See also, E Goh, ‘Great Powers and Southeast Asian Regional Security’ (2006) <italic>Military Technology</italic> 321–23.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn241">
<p><sup>241)</sup> Nasu and Saul, supra n. 4, at 6.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn242">
<p><sup>242)</sup> Hyung Jong, supra n. 174 at 26.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn243">
<p><sup>243)</sup> ‘ASEAN in Crisis: Divided we stagger: Can Indonesia heal the deepening rifts in South-East Asia?’ <italic>The Economist</italic> (18 August 2012).</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn244">
<p><sup>244)</sup> Tang, supra n. 2, at 186-87.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn245">
<p><sup>245)</sup> Saul et al., supra n. 30.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn246">
<p><sup>246)</sup> ‘What is not prohibited in the ToR is not forbidden’, Muntarbhorn, supra n. 93.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn247">
<p><sup>247)</sup> Baxi, supra n. 26, at 10.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn248">
<p><sup>248)</sup> Ibid.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn249">
<p><sup>249)</sup> M Bunyanunda, ‘Burma, ASEAN, and Human Rights: The Decade of Constructive Engagement, 1991-2001’, (2002) 2 <italic>Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs</italic> 118, at 119.</p>
</fn>
</fn-group>
</back>
</article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>Human Rights Protection the ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and the Newest Regional Human Rights System</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>Human Rights Protection the ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and the Newest Regional Human Rights System</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Daniel</namePart><namePart type="family">Aguirre</namePart><affiliation>Lecturer in International Law, Regent’s College, London, UK, aguirred@regents.ac.uk</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: aguirred@regents.ac.uk</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Irene</namePart><namePart type="family">Pietropaoli</namePart><affiliation>PhD Candidate, Middlesex University, London, UK, I.Pietropaoli@mdx.ac.uk</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: I.Pietropaoli@mdx.ac.uk</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Martinus Nijhoff Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Leiden</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2012</dateIssued><dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2012</dateCreated><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2012</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><abstract>The Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) is a regional body working towards the integration of disparate states. The creation of a human rights mechanism, a critical part of this integration, confronts the central philosophy of ASEAN: deference to conservative notions of sovereignty and non-interference, often referred to as the ASEAN Way. This doctrine has been necessary to promote cooperation and trust between these neighbours but may prove incongruent with a human rights body that attempts to monitor and enforce international human rights law. This article looks at the challenges posed by the ASEAN way and how they developed in section 2. Section 3 follows with an examination of the ASEAN Way’s impact on the development of the regional human rights bodies. Section 4 addresses structural problems arising from the ASEAN Way: the limited human rights mandate; the lack of civil society participation; and the lack of common human rights standards among ASEAN states. Overall, this article examines the central irony that the while the ASEAN Way is necessary, it undermines the regional human rights body.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>ASEAN</topic><topic>regional human rights mechanism</topic><topic>sovereignty</topic><topic>non-interference</topic><topic>Asia</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>International Human Rights Law Review</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>HRLR</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">2213-1027</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">2213-1035</identifier><part><date>2012</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>1</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>276</start><end>311</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">25F10651E462A2B104FC5FFAE5631BF89A8075C4</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/JKT-5HQ9V4RP-K</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1163/22131035-00102003</identifier><identifier type="href">22131035_001_02_S03_text.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-56W3KPD5-3">brill-journals</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>© 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/25F10651E462A2B104FC5FFAE5631BF89A8075C4/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001258 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001258 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:25F10651E462A2B104FC5FFAE5631BF89A8075C4
|texte= Human Rights Protection the ASEAN Way: Non-Intervention and the Newest Regional Human Rights System
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |